9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claims of the appellant of not being in possession of the premises, of not procuring any of the raw materials or inputs or not being in control of manufacturing facility, and of merely having been a provider of labour, their liability to duty is not erased. Transfer of materials from M/s Shakti Udyog has also not taken place in accordance with the procedure prescribed for such job-worker. In these circumstances, the appellant must necessarily be considered as the manufacturer - The appellant is unable to bring on record any evidence to substantiate that the production of branded goods was only for a limited period. The liability to duty, therefore, devolves on the appellant. Imposition of penalty on Shri Pradeep Kainya - HELD THAT:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 appellant that the inputs for these products were being supplied by M/s Shakti Udyog and, therefore, assembled by using the facilities at the premises and that the appellant was a mere job-worker discharging appropriate liability under Finance Act, 1994 as provider of service. It is also contended that this had been their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 allegation, not controverted except by a general submission that branded goods had been manufactured only for a limited period, the eligibility to the benefits extended to small-scale units is also not available. The privileges as job-worker, claimed by the appellant, are available only as procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
