2018 (8) TMI 541 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of Appeal Upholding Denial of Benefit Under Notification No. 83/94-CE for Job Work

The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, upholding the denial of benefit under Notification No. 83/94-CE for Job Work. The judgment emphasized ... N/N. 83/94-CE - Job-work - benefit denied on the ground that the Principle manufactures who supplied them, the goods for Job Work neither had any factory nor manufacturing facilities and was also not registered under Excise - Held that:- The principal who had supplied the goods for Job work is not having the factory and is also not registered. The principal had also not filed the declaration with jurisdiction of Central Excise Authority undertaking to used the goods received from the Job Worker for manufacturer of dutiable goods - as the principal does not have a factory or registration he would not fulfill requirements of N/N. 83/94-CE. In instants case, Power of Attorney holders of his principle supplying the goods for Job Work, and the appellant manufacturer, was common entity. In this circumstance, the claim of the appellant that they cannot be expected to know about of activities of the Principal full flat. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty based on availing of Notification 08/2003-CE and denial of benefit under Notification No. 83/94-CE for Job Work.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition by M/s Hari Om Chemicals. The appellant argued that they were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods and undertaking Job Work for another party, claiming benefit under Notification No. 83/94-CE. The Show Cause Notice denied them this benefit, stating that the Principle manufacturer supplying the goods for Job Work was not registered under Excise. The appellant contended that as Job Workers, the duty liability should be on the Principle manufacturer, not on them, regardless of the Principle's registration status or facilities.The respondent relied on the impugned order, highlighting the common Power of Attorney holder between the appellant and the Principle manufacturer supplying the goods. Referring to a Tribunal decision in a similar case, the respondent argued that the Job Worker is liable to pay duty under these circumstances.Upon reviewing the submissions, it was found that the Principle manufacturer supplying the goods for Job Work did not have a factory, was not registered, and had not filed the necessary declaration with the Central Excise Authority. A previous Tribunal decision emphasized the requirement for the Principle manufacturer to undertake the duty liability on finished goods processed by the Job Worker. As this undertaking was lacking, the benefit of the notifications could not be extended to the appellants. Additionally, the absence of a factory or registration by the Principle meant they did not fulfill the requirements of Notification 83/94-CE.Furthermore, it was noted that the Power of Attorney holders of the Principle and the appellant were the same entity. This commonality undermined the appellant's claim of ignorance regarding the activities of the Principle. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the denial of benefit under Notification No. 83/94-CE for Job Work, emphasizing the importance of compliance with notification requirements and the duty liability undertaking by the Principle manufacturer. The common Power of Attorney holder between the parties was a significant factor in determining the appellant's liability for duty payment in this case.