Job-work excise liability turns on filing the undertaking; pre-01.03.2011 duty stayed with the actual manufacturer.

Where goods bearing the Tupperware brand were manufactured through job workers, the principal manufacturer could assume central excise duty liability only after filing the required job-work undertaking with the jurisdictional authorities. The text notes that the undertaking was filed only from 01.03.2011, and duty for the period thereafter had already been discharged. For the earlier period, liability could not be shifted to the appellant; it had to be fastened on the actual manufacturer, namely the job worker. Accordingly, the demand for the period prior to 01.03.2011 was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could be fastened with central excise duty for the period prior to 01.03.2011 when the goods were manufactured through job workers and the undertaking under the job-work notification was filed only from that date.

Analysis: The goods were manufactured and cleared with the brand name "Tupperware". The exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE, as amended, was not available if the goods fell under Chapter 63 and bore the brand name. The dispute, however, concerned the person liable to pay duty. The Tribunal noted that the goods were in fact manufactured by job workers and that, under the job-work notification procedure, the principal manufacturer could assume the duty liability only upon filing the requisite undertaking with the jurisdictional authorities. The record showed that such undertaking was filed only with effect from 01.03.2011, and the duty for the period thereafter had already been discharged by the appellant.

Conclusion: The duty liability for the period prior to 01.03.2011 could not be recovered from the appellant and had to be fastened on the actual manufacturer, namely the job worker. The demand in the impugned order for the prior period was unsustainable.

---