9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een interpreted in liberal terms by the Tribunal and Hon ble High Courts. In the present case, the fire retardant chemicals imported duty free has been supplied to the job workers. Such chemicals were coated on the fabrics manufactured by the job workers. But it is seen that the Fabrics are shown to have been purchased by the appellant as evidenced by the invoices issued for such fabrics. In respect of the main job worker, M/s. JCT Faguara, it is further seen that the procurement of Fabrics from JCT is also supported by issue of CT-3 certificates issued by the Jurisdictional Superintendent for the appellant. This clearly evidences the fact that fabrics have been manufactured by JCT for supply to the appellant. The activity carried out at the premises of job workers will be squarely covered within the para 4 (iii) of the Notification under which due permission has been granted by the Development Commissioner. There is no dispute that the processed fabrics on which the imported chemicals coated has been duly received in the premises of appellant - there is no justification for raising the demand for Customs duty, not paid at the time of import on the chemicals. Appeal allowed - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which goods were allowed for clearance duty free. The adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order, finalising the show cause notice, in which he confirmed the demand of customs Duty as proposed in the show cause notice alongwith interest under Section 28AB of the Act. In addition, he imposed also penalty of an amount equivalent of Customs duty, under Section 114A of the Act. This order is challenged in the present proceedings. 3. With the above background, we heard Dr. Chakraborty, Ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant. Revenue is represented by Shri Chattopadhyay, Ld. A.R. 4. The Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the impugned order demanding Customs duty and imposing penalty is not sustainable. His main arguments are summarised below: (i) He submitted that the appellant acted only within the terms of permission granted by the Development Commissioner for job work/special contract. The imported raw materials were sent to the job workers as per the terms of the permission and was covered by prescribed job working challans. He submitted that there was no instance where the processed fabrics were not received back from job wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of suppression cannot be fastened upon the appellant. 5. The Ld. D.R. justified the impugned order. He submitted that the term job work is covered by the definition under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This term is defined under Rule 2 (n) as follows: job work means processing or working upon of raw material or semi-finished goods supplied to the job worker, so as to complete a part or whole of the process resulting in the manufacture or finishing of an article or any operation which is essential for aforesaid process and the expression job worker shall be construed accordingly. 6. He submitted that the activity of job work, involves processing or working upon of only the raw materials /semi finished goods supplied to the job workers. In the case of the job workers, employed by the appellant, the main raw material i.e. fabrics not having been supplied and the activity of coating of the fire retardant chemicals on the fabrics, cannot be considered as job work in the manufacturing of fabrics. He also distinguished the case laws cited on behalf of the appellant. His argument is that in the case of Sujag Fine Chemicals (India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alify to be considered within the expression job work in as much as the basic fabrics were not sent by the appellant but only the chemicals to be coated on such fabrics was sent by the appellant. It is the view taken by the lower authority that this will not be covered within the process of job work permitted by the Notification. 10. On the other hand, the claim of the appellant is that the activity of job work will cover any activity carried out on what have been supplied by the appellant, even if other required materials are not supplied. Even if the basic raw materials such as fabric is not supplied by the appellant, the appellant s claim is that term job work would cover it. 11. `The purchase of fabrics by applicant from job worker on which coating is done is evident from the invoices issued by the job workers to the appellant. The fact remains that if the fabrics had been sent to the appellant by job worker in terms of the invoices issued, the same will have to be returned back to the same job worker for the activity of coating of fire retardant chemicals. It is submitted that such movement of fabrics would be wasteful of the transportat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
