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>Appellate tribunal rules in favor of respondent on excise duty liability under notifications 83/94 and 84/94.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Versus Panel Boards & Laminates Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Versus Panel Boards & Laminates Ltd. - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 558 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:- Interpretation of notification 83/94 and 84/94 regarding excise duty liability for job work basis manufacturing- Whether the respondent is liable for excise dutyAnalysis:1. Interpretation of notification 83/94 and 84/94: The case involved a respondent who undertook manufacturing of excisable goods on a job work basis under notifications 83/94 and 84/94. The issue was whether the respondent, who supplied finished goods back to raw material suppliers, was liable for excise duty. The department conducted an investigation and found that one of the raw material suppliers did not use the goods for further manufacturing but sold them in the open market. The adjudicating authority imposed demands and penalties, which were set aside by the first appellate authority on the grounds that the respondent was not a manufacturer under the notifications.2. Liability for excise duty: The appellate tribunal examined the records and found that the respondent, functioning under notifications 83/94 and 84/94, did not undertake the responsibility for discharging excise duty on the manufactured goods. The duty liability passed to the raw material supplier, who provided declarations to the relevant authorities. The tribunal noted that the declarations were given, and based on a Board circular, held that the principal manufacturer furnishing the undertaking under the notifications was liable for duty. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision and rejected the revenue's appeal, as the respondent was not responsible for excise duty under the given notifications.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal affirmed the decision of the first appellate authority, emphasizing that the respondent's role under the notifications did not entail excise duty liability. The tribunal's analysis focused on the legal framework of notifications 83/94 and 84/94, clarifying the duty responsibility in job work manufacturing scenarios and upholding the principle manufacturer's liability for excise duty.
TaxTMI 