TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the appellant mill or the associated concern was the manufacturer of the cotton yarn; (ii) whether Notification No. 214/86-C.E. shifted duty liability to the raw material supplier in respect of clandestinely removed goods; (iii) whether the demand was correctly quantified on the basis of computer printouts and other corroborative material; and (iv) whether the penalties imposed on the individuals required interference.
Issue (i): whether the appellant mill or the associated concern was the manufacturer of the cotton yarn.
Analysis: The mill remained registered with the Central Excise department as a manufacturer and had not surrendered that status. The materials on record, including the memorandum arrangements, did not establish that the associated concern became the manufacturer. The manufacturing activity was carried on in the mill premises, and independent statements from buyers and dealers showed that yarn was manufactured and cleared by the mill. A supplier of raw materials does not become the manufacturer merely because of financing, supervision, or supply arrangements, unless the job worker is shown to be a dummy unit.
Conclusion: The mill was correctly treated as the manufacturer of the goods.
Issue (ii): whether Notification No. 214/86-C.E. shifted duty liability to the raw material supplier in respect of clandestinely removed goods.
Analysis: The notification was held to operate for accounted job-work clearances within its terms. Its language did not support shifting the duty burden on goods manufactured and clandestinely removed by the job worker to the raw material supplier. The successor and analogous decisions relied upon by the appellant were distinguished because they did not decide liability for clandestine clearances.
Conclusion: Duty liability remained on the manufacturer and was not transferred to the raw material supplier.
Issue (iii): whether the demand was correctly quantified on the basis of computer printouts and other corroborative material.
Analysis: The computer printouts were not treated as isolated evidence. They were supported by private diaries, letters, records of brokers, dealers' records, transport documents, and deposit entries relating to sale proceeds. The objection to admissibility was rejected in view of the surrounding corroborative material, and the quantification was held to be properly worked out.
Conclusion: The duty demand was correctly quantified and sustained.
Issue (iv): whether the penalties imposed on the individuals required interference.
Analysis: The individual roles were accepted as attracting penalty, but the overall circumstances justified moderation of the quantum. The penalties were therefore reduced to the amounts specified in the order.
Conclusion: The penalties were sustained in principle but reduced in quantum.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the principal liability were upheld, while the individual penalties were maintained with reduction, resulting in a mixed disposal of the connected appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: A raw material supplier does not become liable for duty on clandestinely removed goods manufactured by a job worker merely because of an exemption notification for job-work clearances; manufacturer status and duty liability remain with the entity that actually carries on and clears the manufacture, and such liability can be sustained on the basis of corroborated documentary and circumstantial evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
