9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of remand. - E/451/2011 - FINAL ORDER No. 40560/2019 - Dated:- 15-3-2019 - SHRI MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER And SHRI P. DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR APPELLANT: Shri M. Kannan, Advocate, FOR RESPONDENT: Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar It emerged that the appellants were manufacturing Windshieldd and clearing them to their sister unit M/s. Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd., Pune (SGSIL). It further appeared that appellants were raising invoices on SGSIL as if they were removing inputs namely glass green and PVB clear rolls as such . Appellants had collected service charges amounting to ₹ 11,53,75,520/- from SGSIL during the period November 2005 to July 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. The instruction was that after invoice is raised on them (SGSIL) the above two items will be retained by the appellant for job work (ie.) conversion of the same into incomplete Windshield. ii) It is further submitted that as early as October 2008, the appellants have elaborated on the transaction in their letter dated 15.10.2008 addressed to Superintendent of Central Excise, Poonamallee-V range. While countering audit objection raised for payment of duty on job work charges received from SGSIL. iii) Notwithstanding the above letter dated 15.10.2008, when the Internal Audit insisted that the appellant shall pay duty on job work charges contending that they have manufactured and dispatched windshield glasses ignoring that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by limitation having been issued beyond the normal period. For the same reason, the penalty also is not sustainable. In any case, the duty due on windshield (incomplete) had been paid by SGSIL, Pune, after completion (as stated supra) and hence there is no obligation to pay any duty for the same for the second time. Hence, the demand in the SCN and in respect of Corrigendum dated 03.03.2011 is also totally unsustainable. 2.2 Ld. Advocate fairly concedes that although the jurisdictional Central Excise officers had been informed vide their letters dated 8.10.2005 and 15.10.2008, that the appellants were only doing job work on behalf of SGSIL and that the same had been intimated vide letters as being so under notification No. 214/86, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
