Appeal dismissed as duty liability falls on appellant, not suppliers. Extended period invoked due to discrepancies.

The appeal was dismissed as the duty liability for intermediate goods was confirmed to fall on the appellant/job worker, not the raw material suppliers. The Tribunal upheld that duty liability for goods not covered by specific exemptions rests with the appellant. Additionally, the invocation of the extended period for demand was deemed applicable due to discrepancies in declarations and challans, leading to the decision against the appellant based on insufficient information.

---

---

Issues:
1. Duty liability on intermediate goods under notification no.8/2003-CE.
2. Applicability of exemption notifications no.83/1994-CE and 84/1994-CE.
3. Invocation of extended period for demand.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability on intermediate goods under notification no.8/2003-CE:
The appellant argued that the duty liability for intermediate goods lies with the raw material suppliers as per undertakings given. However, the Tribunal observed that duty liability for goods not specified under the exemption notification is to be discharged by the appellant/job worker. Citing the case of Super Polyfabriks Ltd., the Tribunal confirmed that duty liability on captively consumed goods not eligible for exemption falls on the appellant. A similar view was upheld in the case of Astron Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. The duty demand on intermediate goods was confirmed on merits.

Issue 2: Applicability of exemption notifications no.83/1994-CE and 84/1994-CE:
The Tribunal noted that the exemptions under these notifications apply to specified goods sent back to raw material suppliers availing SSI exemption. The argument that duty liability rests solely with the suppliers for finished goods was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that duty liability for goods not covered by SSI exemption falls on the appellant/job worker, as clarified in previous judgments.

Issue 3: Invocation of extended period for demand:
Regarding the time bar, the appellant contended that all required intimations and declarations were filed, and clearances were properly documented. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the declarations and challans regarding the manufacturing process of job work and the existence of non-specified goods. As details were lacking, the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was deemed applicable. The case was decided against the appellant due to insufficient information and the extended period was upheld.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed based on the duty liability for intermediate goods, the applicability of exemption notifications, and the invocation of the extended period for demand.

---