9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idently the appellant was aware that the job work is being done by M/s Dynasty, Noida– UP, and such goods were dutiable, whereas the appellant indulged in falsification of records in connivance with the said M/s Dynasty, Noida which issued challans as if the goods have been job worked at Haridwar, (UK). Impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llans, during the period 2008-09. They clearly mentioned in the challans- "exempted vide Notification Nos.49 and 50/2003 dated 10/06/2003." Scrutiny of challans and subsidiary challans submitted by appellant for receiving goods in piecemeal after job work, revealed that they were issued by M/s Dynasty, in the state of Uttrakhand (UK for short). In the said challans factory of M/s Dynasty was shown situated at Haridwar, UK and Head Office at Noida, UP. During search Shri B.N. Singh, Director of M/s Dynasty had informed that their unit at Haridwar is a proprietorship unit and he is proprietor of the firm. It appeared to revenue that the job work of 'wire drawing out' of 'Copper Wire Rods' supplied by appellant was carried out at M/s Dynasty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, why not penalty be imposed under Rule 26 of CER, 2002 for not following the procedure, as laid down under Notification No.214/86-CE and also dealing with the excisable goods cleared without payment of duty, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 5. The SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 24/12/2014 by the Additional Commissioner who was pleased to impose penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 on M/s Dynasty, Noida and at the same time imposed equal amount of penalty of ₹ 18,22,719/- under Rule 26, on the appellant, observing that they have also violated the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by knowingly receiving excisable goods from M/s Dynasty, Noida, without payment of duty. Being aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE, Bangalore reported at 2015 (318) ELT 340 (Tri.-Bang) wherein it was held that unless the principal manufacturer gives the stated undertaking, the job worker will not be entitled to avail the benefits of Notification No.214/86. In absence of such undertaking, revenue cannot compel the principal manufacturer to take over the responsibility of payment of duty on the job worked goods. Further, it is contended that penalty under Rule 26 is imposable only when the goods are liable for confiscation. In the show cause notice neither there is any proposal for confiscation of goods nor there is any confiscation made in the order, by the Courts below. Reliance is placed on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of M/s RMG Polyvinyl India Ltd Vs C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
