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>Job worker liable for duty on goods supplied to principal manufacturer. Duty demand barred by limitation. Tribunal sets aside order.</h1> <h3>Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd., Thermax Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I</h3> Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd., Thermax Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I - TMI Issues:Liability of job worker to discharge duty under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 when principal manufacturer avails duty exemption under a notification.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I. The Tribunal decided most issues in favor of the appellant but referred the question of job worker's liability to discharge duty to the Larger Bench due to conflicting views.2. The Larger Bench held that the job worker, M/s. Thermax Ltd., is liable to pay duty on the intermediate goods manufactured on a job work basis and supplied to their principal, M/s. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. This decision was based on the job worker being a manufacturer of excisable goods.3. The appellant argued that the demand for duty was barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued after a significant delay. The appellant believed they were not required to discharge duty on materials received under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant cited a judgment to support their contention.4. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner, but the Tribunal found that the issue had already been decided in favor of the appellant in one appeal. The only issue referred to the Larger Bench was the job worker's liability to discharge duty under Rule 4(5)(a) when following the job-work procedure.5. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue was decided against the appellant on merit but agreed that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression and misdeclaration. The movements of inputs were compliant with the rules, and conflicting views on liability to discharge duty justified the lack of extended limitation period.6. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
