9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its. All the units were having separate independent registration with Central Excise Department. They were also availing facility of Cenvat credit. All the units were engaged in manufacture of Metalized Polyester Film falling under Tariff Item No. 39219093 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents also undertook job work of Metallization of polyester or Plastic Films for their customers where customers have registered themselves with the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers for availing exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/03/1986 and used to send semi-finished goods to the respondents and respondents used to undertake job work on the same and used to return the processed goods to customers w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit No. III June'10 to February'11 Rs. 2,40,07,397/- 05. 13/Commr./LKO/CX/11-12 Unit No. II June'10 to February'11 Rs. 1,02,26,497/- 06. 43/Commr./LKO/CX/12-13 Unit No. III October'11 to March'12 Rs. 1,31,97,591/- 07. 05/Commr./LKO/CX/13-14 Unit No. III April'12 to December'12 Rs. 1,96,46,637/- Total= Rs. 13,78,43,199/- The total demand in respect of job work in the 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 described in the above stated table as in respect of stock transfer. The issue Involved was that the final products were sold by the respondent to independent buyers and at the same price the final p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciated the grounds putforth and dropped the demands. Being aggrieved by the said order, revenue have preferred above stated appeal in respect of above stated 7 Show Cause Notices before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the ld. Counsel for the respondent, who has submitted that it is well settled principles of law that the procedure set out in Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/03/1986 provides that the principal manufacturer undertakes to pay duty of Central Excise on the goods processed by a job worker. It is an admitted fact that semi-processed goods were received by the respondent which were subjected to job work and were returned to the principal manufacturer and principal manufacturer was required to pay Central Excise duty on the same s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 Bench decision by this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad reported at 2007 (209) E.L.T 185 (Tri.-Larger Bench). He has taken us through the issue referred to Larger Bench in the said case, which is as follows:- "The issue referred to the Larger Bench is whether the assessable value in respect of goods which are transferred to another plant of the same assessee is required to be determined as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or as per Rule 8 of the said in a case where the same goods are also sold to independent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
