9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I relates to identification as 'person liable to pay duty' on the manufactured goods bearing the brand name 'PAG'. According to the impugned order, duty of Rs. 15,42,582/- was liable on clearance of goods valued at Rs. 1,03,21,265/- between 1st April 2008 to 28th February 2009. The primary case of the central excise authorities is that M/s Electroclad, who is the owner of the premises at which M/s Shakti Udyog, a proprietorship concern of Shri Pradeep Kainya, was assembling 'mortise lock for flush doors' and other similar products out of material supplied by the tenant and which, in turn, was delivered to M/s Shakti Udyog without payment of duty. It has been the consistent contention then, and now as well, of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said document by the authorities under Income Tax Act, 1961, they had access to that evidences much later and only by resort to the Right to Information Act, 2005. This aspect was not given due consideration in the impugned order 3. It is not in dispute that certain products emerge in the hands of the appellant which is excisable. The only ground on which the liability to duty therefrom can be escaped is by resort to notification no. 8/2003-CE dated 1st March 2003 or if the claim of the appellant to be a 'job-worker' is correct concurrent with assumption of the responsibility by M/s Shakti Udyog for discharge of duty liability. There is no such assumption of responsibility to discharge duty liability and, in the light of the allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the primary tax liability vests in the 'manufacturer' with escapement allowed only in the circumstances specified and conditional upon compliance with procedures prescribed. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal of M/s Electroclad. 5. Insofar as penalty imposed on Shri Pradeep Kainya is concerned, it is seen that he is the proprietor of the principal manufacturer which had merely utilized the facilities of M/s Electroclad to undertake manufacturing on their behalf. It has been held that the liability, as manufacturer, vests with M/s Electroclad and not upon the principal manufacturer to whom goods were supplied. Further, with the uncontested compliance with the tax liability under Finance Act, 1994, there is no ground to attrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
