9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise department themselves have given registration has manufacturers to ROL, and after citing such registration number, issued an undertaking to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of appellant. The appellant could not have been expected to take any further precautions to ensure that notification 214/86 has been correctly availed. There is also no allegation whatsoever that there is any loss of revenue. The demand of duty as well as proposition to impose penalties upon appellant are not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1415/2011 - A/30640/2019 - Dated:- 4-6-2019 - HON'BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON'BLE MS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in or in relation to manufacture of final products in his factory or removed from his factory without payment of duty for export or removed on payment of duty for home consumption from his factory or used in manufacture of goods by another job worker for further use. The second condition of the exemption notification is that the supplier/main manufacturer should produce evidence that the said goods have been used or removed in the manner prescribed above and the third condition is that the supplier undertakes the responsibility of discharging liabilities in respect of Central Excise duty leviable on the final products. 4. In this case the main manufacturer ROL, registered as manufacturer with Central Excise department, had given an unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. There is no allegation that ROL has either not used the goods in the manner prescribed in the notification or that they have not produced evidence that the goods have been so used. It is also not in dispute that ROL undertook the responsibility of discharging liabilities of Central Excise duty. There is also no allegation that the goods have not been used as required or that Central Excise duty has not been discharged on the goods if they were cleared for home consumption. The only allegation in the show cause notice is that since ROL, has no factory, they could not have used the goods for manufacture of final products and also could not have removed the goods for home consumption from their factory. The show cause notice dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises on the manufacturer who, in this case is the appellant. The exemption notification 214/86-CE is an exception to the general rule that duty should be paid and therefore must be strictly construed and all conditions therein must be fulfilled. One of the conditions of the exemption notification is that the goods in question must either have been used for manufacture of final products or must be cleared as such for home consumption or for export from the factory of manufacturer. In this case, the supplier does not have a factory of their own at all and therefore these conditions are impossible to fulfil and therefore exemption notification is not available to the appellant. 8. We have considered the arguments on both sides. We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
