9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l India Pvt Ltd. The appellant was under bona fide belief that the direct sale is covered under SSI exemption for the reason that as per their bonafide belief job work goods being not dutiable in their hands is not includible in the aggregate value of the overall clearances of the goods. For this reason M/s Paras Trading Company has not discharged the duty. It is also found that the issue of excise duty liability on the job work was under serious dispute as there were conflicting judgments and subsequently this CESTAT s Larger Bench in the case of THERMAX BABCOCK AND WILCOX LTD., THERMAX LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I [ 2017 (12) TMI 266 - CESTAT MUMBAI] settled the issue holding that job worker is liable to pay duty eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot against the penalties imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalties on the present appellants were imposed by the adjudicating authority in connection with nonpayment of duty by the manufacturer of goods on job work basis by M/s Paras Trading Company. The appeal of the Paras Trading Company, since the proprietor expired, has been abated and disposed of accordingly. The role of the three present appellants are as under:- 1) Abbas Rangwala- E/10453/2014 This appellant is working as Plant Account Manager of M/s Cargill India Pvt Ltd, the company who is the principal manufacturer wherein the goods processed on job work basis by M/s Paras Trading Company was used. 2) Santosh Khandelwal- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is an employee of M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. firstly, there was bona fide belief on the part of the job worker. Secondly, even if the job worker has not paid the duty, at the hand of recipient of goods, no penalty can be imposed. More so, the appellant being an employee that too of recipient of goods, is not concern with duty liability of the job worker. He further submits that no penalty was imposed on the company where appellant is working. For this reason also when there is no offence against the company it s employee cannot be held for penalty. 4. As regard the appeal of Shri Abbas Rangwala, I find that though no one appeared on behalf of the appellant but hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured on job work basis. The larger bench judgment was delivered subsequent to the passing of the impugned order in the present case. In this fact there in no mala fide intention on the part of the M/s Paras Trading Company, in non payment of Excise duty. It is also observed that M/s Paras Trading Company has made legitimate transaction by issuing of invoices and all the transactions and payment particulars are recorded in their books of accounts. This is not case of clandestine removal such as removal of goods without issuing any documents. Therefore, there is no doubt that the appellant has rightly entertained the bona fide belief even though they were liable to pay the excise duty. 6.1 Without prejudice to the above as regard the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
