9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t exempted services provided by it as job worker and confirmation of demand for its recovery under Rule 14 alongwith interest as well as penalty under Rule 15(1)&(2) is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that Appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods namely Sugar Mill Roller, Lathe Machines and parts of mill assembly against clearance of which appropriate Central Excise duty liability was discharged by it. Alongwith manufacturing, it has also carried out certain job work activities for other principal manufacturers and engaged in processing of semi-finished goods received from the principal manufacturer which were being processed and return back to the principal manufacturer without payment of duty as per Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34) STR - 345, and even for the subsequent period the demands raised against other job workers situated in the same Commissionerate were also dropped by the Adjudicating Authorities. In citing judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2004 (171) ELT 145 (SC) and of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Starlight Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri.-LB), he further submitted that issue relating to non-payment of duty by job worker should not be considered as goods exempted from duty of Excise even during the MODVAT era, for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable both in law and facts. His alternate submission is that excisabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first time Appellant has raised a new ground that it was also manufacturing goods as job worker but infect it was publishing and developing intermediate products that was being subsequently developed by the principal manufacturer and cleared on payment of duty. In support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), he argued that Appellant's case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Hema Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T., New Delhi reported in 2017 (5) GSTL 43 (Tri.-Del.), for which interference by the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is uncalled for. 5. I have perused the case record and the relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e production and not production of any kind of goods or goods in general. In the instant case the nature of resultant output from the job workers end is not referred anywhere in the entire appeal case record including show-cause notice, orders etc., except that nature of work undertaken by it is mentioned as machining of shaft and rollers but whether the final outcome of the same would be a marketable product without any further development by the principal/original manufacturer is not forthcoming form the show-cause notice or from the orders. 5.1 Be that as it may, in Hema Engineering Industries Ltd. cited supra, placing reliance on which learned Commissioner (Appeals) had passed his order, Notification No. 08/2005-S.T. was considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
