9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that - (a) the appellant is undertaking job work for various parties and as such, the Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,53,825/- availed on Furnace Oil used for job work is not eligible; (b) the appellant is not entitled for clearance without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-CE, where the raw material supplier is a trader and accordingly, proposed to demand duty of Rs. 6,91,170/-and (c) the appellant has adopted lesser assessable value in respect of excisable goods cleared to depot and accordingly, proposed to demand a duty of Rs. 13,644/-. 1.1 The appellant was issued with a show-cause notice, dated 09.08.2005, in this regard with the above allegations including demand of duty wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f job-worked goods without payment of duty under challans in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE or 83/94-CE is not correct. On scrutiny of the para 4.2 and para 4.2.3 of show-cause notice, it can be seen that the department has not conducted any investigation with the above parties to establish that they are traders. The notice does not also rely upon any documentary evidence to say that above said parties and traders are not manufacturers. In the absence of any basis or evidence to establish that the above said persons are traders, the allegation and the proposal to demand duty on the job work transaction merely on the ground that such parties to whom the appellant have carried out job work are traders is not tenable at all. During the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prises are only traders and not manufacturers. On perusal of the said letter it could be seen that the appellant has nowhere admitted that they were traders. 3. On behalf of the department, the learned Authorised Representative Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that as per letter, dated 16.03.2005 appellants have admitted that M/s. Intech Enterprises and M/s. Kumar Enterprises are merely traders. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The demand of duty, which is under challenge in this appeal is on the ground that appellant, who is a job worker cleared goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86 to traders. On perusal of the show-cause notice as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
