Tribunal Rules Supplier Liable for Duty on Products; Clears Job Worker from Demands, Penalties, and Interest.

The Tribunal set aside the demand for duty of Rs. 16,02,337/- on finished products sent without payment, ruling that the supplier, not the job worker, is liable under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It also determined that the value of clearances should not be included in the aggregate value for SSI exemption, rendering the demand of Rs. 15,99,611/- unsustainable. Consequently, the imposition of penalty and interest was deemed unjustifiable. The Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief and confirming no penalty or interest was applicable.

---

---

Issues:
1. Demand of duty on finished products sent to another company without payment.
2. Inclusion of value of clearance in aggregate value for SSI exemption.
3. Imposition of penalty and interest.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the demand of duty on finished products sent to another company without payment. The Revenue contended that the appellants should have followed a specific procedure and discharged duty on the finished products. The duty was demanded under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal ruled that as per Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the liability of paying duty is on the supplier, not the job worker. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal set aside the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 16,02,337/-.

2. The issue of including the value of clearance in the aggregate value for SSI exemption was raised. The Revenue argued that the value of clearances should have been included in the aggregate value for computing SSI limits. However, the Tribunal referred to Notification No. 8/2003 and relevant case laws to determine that the value of clearance bearing another person's brand name should not be included in the aggregate value for SSI exemption. As the raw material supplier was not entitled to SSI benefit, the demand of Rs. 15,99,611/- was deemed unsustainable.

3. The imposition of penalty and interest was challenged based on the unsustainability of the previous demands. The Tribunal held that since the demands were not sustainable, the imposition of penalty and interest could not be upheld. Therefore, the Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty or interest was leviable due to the setting aside of the entire demand of duty.

---