9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempted goods since the same were subjected to Central Excise duty and responsibility to pay Central Excise duty on the said goods was on the principal manufacturer as per the provisions of N/N. 214/86-CE dated 25/03/1986 - the issue settled by Larger Bench decision by this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] is squarely applicable in the present case, in respect of the confirmation of demand on account of short payment of levy - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/118 & 119/2010-EX [ DB ] - Final Order No. A/71937-71939/2017-EX [DB] - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the said processed goods were covered by the Challans prescribed by said Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/03/1986. The appellants were availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and Service Tax paid on input services. The said inputs and input services were consumed both for manufacture of goods which were cleared on payment of duty by the appellants and also in the process of manufacture undertaken in order to complete job work on the semi-finished goods received from principal manufacturers which were subsequently sent back to the principal manufacturers after completion of process of job work. It appeared to Revenue that the semi processed goods which were sent back to the principal manufacturers were exempted goods and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,77,738.00 The total demand in respect of job work in the Show Cause Notice dated 17/06/2008 was ₹ 2,86,41271/- and similarly demands in respect of job work in other Show Cause Notices were as stated above in the table in addition to the said demand. The Show Cause Notices also demanded short paid Central Excise duty which is scribed in the above stated table as in respect of stock transfer. The issue involved was that the final products were sold by the appellants to independent buyers and at the same price the final products were also transferred to their other unit without involving procedure of sale. It appeared to Revenue that the assessment value should be on the basis of assessable value arrived at by fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gad reported at 2007 (02) L.C.X. 0003. The Original Authority did not appreciate the grounds putforth and confirmed the demand of ₹ 4,26,21,490/- under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and further confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,29,42,608/- on account of allegation of undervaluation of goods stock transferred to other units under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and equal amount of penalty was imposed. In similar manner, the demands raised in other Show Cause Notices stated above were also confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant have preferred above stated two appeals in respect of ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturer and allowing permission to the principal manufacturer and the appellant following the procedure of movement of semi-finished goods on Challan itself established beyond doubt that the goods ultimately manufactured out of such job work were not exempted nor were attracting nil rate of duty and therefore the said provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not apply to the same. He has relied upon the ruling by Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Happy Forging Ltd. reported at 2011 (265) E.L.T. 0197 (P H). He has further submitted that in respect of the alleged short payment of Central Excise duty on account of stock transfer the issue was settled by Larger Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty under Rule 8 did not follow the prescribed procedure of arriving at assessable value on CAS-4 Certificate in violation of standing instructions of C.B.E.C. 4. Heard the ld. A. R. for, who has supported the impugned common Order-in-Original dated 30/09/2009. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that the goods which were processed by the appellants on being received from the principal manufacturer, which were returned back to the principal manufacturer were not exempted goods since the same were subjected to Central Excise duty and responsibility to pay Central Excise duty on the said goods was on the principal manufacturer as per the provisions of Notification No. 214/86-CE date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
