TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants relief to iron and steel company in duty liability dispute</h1> <h3>LIBRA STEEL PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT</h3> LIBRA STEEL PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT - 2013 (292) E.L.T. 454 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Applicability of small scale exemption Notification No. 16/97 for clearance of re-rolled products.2. Correct notification for seeking exemption for goods received after job work.3. Liability of duty on ingots sent for job work.4. Claim of duty liability on job worker.5. Correct procedure for clearance of goods under relevant notifications.Analysis:1. The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel ingots, sending products for job work to another company and claiming small scale exemption under Notification No. 16/97 for clearance of re-rolled products. The jurisdictional authorities issued a show cause notice for non-payment of duty on the products cleared. The original authority confirmed the demand, which was also upheld in the appeal.2. The appellant, now in liquidation, argued that the denial of concessional clearance was due to citing the incorrect notification (No. 214/86) instead of Notification No. 83/94 for seeking exemption. They claimed substantial compliance with the law and that the mistake was technical, requesting not to be penalized for the error.3. The Departmental Representative contended that while re-rolled products were eligible for exemption, the ingots sent for job work were not covered. The appellant's choice to opt out of the Modvat facility affected the clearance under Notification No. 214/86, and Notification No. 83/94 was also deemed inapplicable as the goods received were not used in manufacturing other products.4. The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and observed that the appellant's clearance of re-rolled products under Notification No. 214/86 at NIL rate of duty was incorrect. It was noted that the duty liability should fall on the job worker, not the appellant, as the job worker's process resulted in final products. The duty demand on re-rolled products, not on ingots, was deemed unsustainable, and the order was set aside with relief to the appellant.5. The Tribunal concluded that the duty demand on re-rolled products was not valid as the appellant was not the manufacturer of those products. The correct procedure for duty liability was determined to be on the job worker, M/s. Palakkad Steels (P) Ltd., who undertook the manufacturing process. The appellant's mistake in citing the wrong notification was considered a technical error, and relief was granted based on the correct interpretation of the applicable notifications and duty liability.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.
TaxTMI 