9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes, manufacture takes place and liability to duty is attracted. Thus, the sale or the ownership of the end product is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of taxable event under the scheme of the Central Excise Act, read with the Rules. Further, the job worker is not liable to pay duty only in the circumstances under the erstwhile Rule 57(F) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, or according to the present Rule 4 (5)(a) of CCR, 2004 read with the relevant Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, wherein the principal manufacturer gives an undertaking to the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority of the job worker to pay the duty. In the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng activity on job work basis, for which raw materials are supplied by the Appellant. The manufacturing activity in such cases is undertaken by job workers in their own premises. Appellant neither operated under rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (Credit Rules), nor undertook any responsibility of using job worked goods in further manufacture of dutiable goods and of discharging duty liability thereon, in terms of Notification No. 83/94-CE dated 11.04.1994, 84/94-CE dated 11.04.1994 or 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. Further, no declaration/undertaking to pay duty was filed by the Appellant under the said Notifications. 3. The appellant has been availing Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption benefit under Notification No.8/2003-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 27 ibid. The show cause notice alleged that the value of clearances made by the Appellant from its own factory as well as from the factories of the job-workers are liable to be clubbed in terms of Para 2(v) (vii) of Notification No.8/2003 CE, for denial of benefit of exemption under the said notification. 6. Appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated 04.03.2013 rebutting the allegations contained in the show cause notice. The ld. Additional Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original dated 11.03.2013 (Order-in-Original) dropped the proceedings initiated vide the show cause notice and held that the appellant has correctly availed the benefit of SSI exemption during the relevant period. The ld. Adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een considered by this Tribunal in the case of sister unit of the appellant viz. Mewar Hi-tech Engineering Ltd., whereby this Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/51162/2019-EX(DB), decided the issue in favour of the appellant. 11. Ld. Counsel further urges that admittedly the goods have been manufactured by the job workers independently without any control and supervision of the appellant. Only for mere supply of raw materials by the appellant, would not cast excise duty liability on the appellant. Further, the transactions between the appellant and the job workers were on principal to principal basis. The entire manufacturing process in the job work s premises were carried out by the job worker independently, without involvement of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility, if any, arises on the job workers, as the job workers are the real manufacturers as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act. 14. The ld. Authorised Representative for the Department relied upon the impugned order. 15. He further urges that though the clearances of final products manufactured by the job workers, were made directly by the job workers to the buyers of the goods, but as the commercial invoices for sale of such goods have been raised by the appellant, and the job workers have only received their job charges, thus, the appellant is the actual manufacturer and accordingly, the Court below has rightly held that they are liable to pay duty. 16. Opposing the contention of the Revenue, the ld. Counsel for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay the duty. In the present case, admittedly, no such procedure was undertaken. Hence, under the scheme of the Act, ipso facto the duty liability is on the job worker. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay any central excise duty for the goods got manufactured and cleared from the job worker s premises. 18. As regards the issue of limitation, we find that admittedly, the appellant has maintained proper books of accounts register and vouchers of their transactions and has also disclosed such transactions before other Tax Authorities, as the appellant was not liable to pay central excise duty being an SSI Unit, not requiring registration under the Central Excise Provisions. Accordingly, we hold hat the demand for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
