9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representing the appellants, submitted that they were withdrawing Appeal No. E/2752/86-A, filed by M/s. Suvarna Filter Tobacco Co. On the basis of this submission, we dismiss the Appeal No. E/2752/86-A as not pressed without going into the issues involved. 3.With regard to other appeals, ld. Counsel submitted that it is settled law that job workers are manufacturers and they have the liability to pay duty in respect of goods manufactured by them. He also submitted that on this ground in identical set of facts relating to production of ITC brand cigarettes by the job workers of ITC, this Tribunal held that there was no duty liability on ITC in respect of cigarettes produced by their job workers. It was also held that the job workers of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts with intent to evade payment of duty by the manufacturers. Ld. Counsel contended that in the facts of these cases, there was no evidence on record that the job workers were party to any fraud. Therefore, the extended period of duty demand could not be raised against them. Ld. Counsel, further, submitted that since duty demands are not maintainable, no penalties could also be imposed on any of the parties, as penalties are in relation to evasion of duty of excise. In this connection, ld. Counsel referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. H.M.M. Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). 4.As against the aforesaid submissions of the ld. Counsel for the appellants, the ld. Counsel representing the Revenue sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Supreme Court was followed by the Tribunal in identical set of facts relating to manufacture of ITC brand cigarettes [I.T.C. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 151]. In this view of the matter, the duty demand raised against G.T.C. in the impugned adjudication order in relating to the goods manufactured by the job workers, cannot be sustained. 6.With regard to the contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the revenue based on this Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 161-162/97-D, dated 3-3-1997, we find that that order related to manufacture of cigarettes by G.T.C. themselves. The findings, in that order, do not have any relevance to the facts on hand and that order is of no assistance to the Revenue. 7.According to the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
