9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Panda, Member (J) Shri Ravi Raghvan, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri R.K. Choudhury and B.N. Pal, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellants cleared M.S. billets from their Steel Plant at Durgapur to the Depot at Guwahati from where according to orders placed by the purchasers they got the billets converted to tor steel at the hand of job workers The job workers, during the impugned period operated under the compounded levy scheme and paid duty at the rate of Rs. 300/- per Metric Ton. According to the appellants' instructions, the job workers directly supplied the consignments to the ultimate purchasers of tor steel under invoices issued by them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11D. 5. He also argued that Depot of the Steel Authority of India Limited at Guwahati is not a manufacturer and not liable to pay duty and hence the duty demand under Section 11D against the Depot of SAIL is not sustainable in view of the following two decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 646 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam - Final Order No. 750/2005-C.E., dated 5-5-2005. 6. Shri R. K. Chowdhury, ld. Advocate appearing for the Department states that since tor steel is the product which was sold to the purchasers, any amount collected over and above the compounded l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence they should be held as manufacturers of tor steel and that the provision of Section 11D is applicable to them since as manufacturers, the liability to pay the duty was on them. At the same time, we note that the Department has treated the job workers as manufacturers and duty on tor steel has been collected from the job workers under the compounded levy scheme after fixing the ACP. 8. We further note that even if we are to accept the Department's contention that the Depot of SAIL as a manufacturer was liable to pay Excise Duty and hence the provision of Section 11D applies to the appellants, we are still inclined to accept the arguments a by the ld. Advocate for the appellants that while calculating the Excise Duty paid, the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
