9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g perused the decision in M/S. R.N. ALLOYS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX, UTTARAKHAND [ 2023 (11) TMI 364 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , it is found that identical facts were involved in the said case, where the principal manufacturer, who supplied the raw materials/inputs to the job worker, was availing the benefit of area based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 and, therefore, were not paying the central excise duty on their final products. Considering the provisions of the notification and the conditions specified therein, it was noticed that the principal manufacturer had not submitted the undertaking that the goods shall be removed on payment of duty for home consumption from his factory. In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e central excise duty, they are liable to pay interest thereon under Section 11AA of the Act. There are no merits in this appeal and, therefore, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal, accordingly stands dismissed. - MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None for the appellant. Shri Unmesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER Challenge in the present appeal is to the Order-in-Appeal No. 365-36(SM)CE/JPR/2018 dated 30.08.2018, whereby the appellant was denied the benefit of the exemption notification for job work. 2. M/s. Tamra Dhatu Ydyog Pvt. Ltd., the assessee were engaged in the manufacture of Copper Wires on job work basis for M/s. Neelgiri Electricals, who had supplied th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 22.12.2022. Heard Shri Unmesh Kumar, learned Authorised Representative for the Department and perused the appeal records. 4. The basic issue in the appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay central excise duty on the goods manufactured by them on job work basis under Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 for M/s. Neelgiri Electricals, who were availing the area based exemption under Notification No.49 50/2003-CE and were clearing the goods at Nil rate of duty. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the purchase order of M/s. Neelgiri Electricals was showing Nil rate of duty and, therefore, they were under the impression that no duty is payable on the goods manufactured by them on job work basis fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailing the benefit of area based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 and, therefore, were not paying the central excise duty on their final products. Considering the provisions of the notification and the conditions specified therein, it was noticed that the principal manufacturer had not submitted the undertaking that the goods shall be removed on payment of duty for home consumption from his factory. The relevant para of the decision is as under:- The Notification No 214/86 has been the subject matter of interpretation in various decisions of the Tribunal as well as of the Supreme Court. The condition of submitting an undertaking by the principal manufacturer or the supplier of the raw material as provided in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r being the manufacturer of goods is liable to pay duty on goods manufactured by him albeit on job work. The ownership of the goods is immaterial for the purpose of levy of duty and thus any person who has undertaken the activity of manufacture is liable to pay duty. In order to save the job worker from payment of duty the principal manufacturer has to own the liability to pay such duty. It is only by virtue of the Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 that the liability of the job worker to pay duty is transferred to the principal manufacturer who undertakes to pay duty. 7.7 The intention of enactment of Notification (supra) was to shift the liability of payment of duty from job worker to the principal manufacturer under certain co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise duty, which is not the intention of the notification and the interpretation thereof placed by the various decisions. If the principal manufacturer has not discharged the tax liability, the burden would fall on the job worker and in that view, the appellant is liable to discharge the duty liability. 9. The Authorities below have rightly imposed the penalty on the appellant as well as on the Director. It was within the knowledge of the appellant that M/s. Neelgiri Electricals was availing the exemption of central excise duty under the area based exemption notification as mentioned on the job work challan and also as admitted by Shri Raghu Nandan Chhimpa, Manager and Authorised Signatory of the appellant in his statement recorded under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
