9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C (Import) vs Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]. On a plain reading of the explanation, which defines what constitutes 'job work', it would be obvious that all the inputs or semi finished goods are to be sent by the principal manufacturer and the activities are to be undertaken by the job worker, which may or may not amount to manufacture - Once, it is not considered as job work, there has to be payment of duty as there is no other notification available for exempting the same and the plea that ultimately the principal manufacturer would have paid the duty on the same would be of no consequence when the duty is required to be discharged at the stage where the said manufactured goods are cleared from the factory where they are manufactured. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- No substantive ground has been adduced by the appellant in support that there was a bonafide mistake or wrong understanding of the law - there is enough ground for the department to invoke extended period as there has been a deliberate suppression and misstatement of fact. Therefore, the extended period has been rightly invoked. Penalty u/s 11AC and under Rule 25 of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Central Excise officer as regards payment of duty on the final products which included the said job work products, which are being sent without payment of duty by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority has gone through the provisions of the notification and especially explanation-1, where the expression "job work" has been defined to come to the conclusion that in a case where inputs, other than the inputs provided by the principal manufacturers, are used in the job work, the said activities would not be considered as job work under the said notification. The Adjudicating Authority has essentially held that certain inputs were used by the appellant like Antimony, Tin, Selenium, etc., while undertaking job work on the scrap batteries supplied by M/s Amara Raja Batteries Ltd and therefore, the activity cannot be considered as job work. He relied on the case law of M/s Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd Vs CCE, Meerut [1994 (73) ELT 497 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that job work means goods produced out of materials supplied by customer and where the job workers contribute mainly their labour and skill though done with the help of their own tools, gad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the inputs used in the course of job work based on the same set of facts. The Adjudicating Authority also examined the cited case law of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs Collector [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)] and after examining the fact that SCN dt.03.09.2014 is not periodical or similar to the earlier SCN dt.06.09.2013, held that this cannot be ground for not invoking extended period. On the contrary, he observed that the principal manufacturer, vide their letter dt.01.04.2013 informed the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that they would be sending to the appellant/job worker Antimony, Tin, Selenium etc., on job work basis for conversion into smelting blocks and process for alloy by melting of smelting blocks by mixing Antimony, Tin, Selenium, etc., which was also confirmed by the appellant vide their letter dt.07.06.2013. However, despite this, the appellant used these items on their own account during the process undertaken by them. Therefore, it is a case of misstatement of facts. Therefore, in the facts of the case, extended period is rightly invocable. It is also an admitted fact that while the first SCN has been issued invoking extended period and also proposing penalty under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk activity or otherwise. In the facts of the case, there is clear manufacture of pure lead and lead alloys from scrap batteries in the premises of the appellant and therefore, what are being cleared by the appellant to the principal manufacturer are manufactured goods. All the manufactured goods are required to discharge applicable Central Excise duty, however, in terms of notification 214/86-CE, any job work goods, manufactured or otherwise, when cleared to the principal manufacturer are exempted from payment of duty subject to certain conditions. It is not in dispute that those conditions are not fulfilled by the principal manufacturer. However, what is being disputed is whether the entire activities performed by the appellant would get covered within the definition of job work or otherwise. If it is not covered within the definition of job work, then the notification itself would not be applicable and duty would be required to be discharged irrespective of whether it is being cleared back to the principal manufacturer or otherwise. They have relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd Vs CCE, Meerut (supra), wherein the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the issue involved was conversion of lead and lead alloys from lower purity to higher purity without change of its characteristics of the items, whereas, in the instant case, there is conversion of used or defective batteries into lead and lead alloys using their inputs and therefore, distinguishable on facts. 10. Heard both sides and perused the records. 11. The short question which needs to be decided is whether in the facts of the case, Notification No.214/86-CE is admissible or not. We find that admittedly they have used certain alloying elements when converting scrap into pure lead and leady alloys. The appellants, through an elaborate process, converted the used and defective batteries into scrap and thereafter, further converted it into pure lead and thereafter, again further converted it into lead alloys by using/adding certain elements like Antimony, Tin, Selenium, etc. It is also not in dispute that these three inputs are used by the appellant themselves and are not being supplied by the principal manufacturer. 12. The wordings of the notification has to be construed strictly, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC (Import) vs Dilip Kumar & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
