Tribunal Upheld Duty Liability on Stainless Steel Circles, Job Worker Liable

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, dismissing the Department's contentions regarding liability for central excise duty on stainless steel circles and scrap. The respondents were found liable for duty as they failed to submit the required undertaking under Notification No. 214/86-CE. The Tribunal concluded that the job worker was the manufacturer and responsible for duty payment. Appeals against penalty imposition on the Director and Manager were dismissed, with the Director's appeal abated due to his passing. The Order-in-Original was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of Central Excise Duty on Stainless Steel Circles and Scrap.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986.
3. Procedural Compliance and Undertaking Requirements.
4. Penalty on Directors and Managers.

Summary:

1. Liability of Central Excise Duty on Stainless Steel Circles and Scrap:
The Department alleged that the respondents cleared stainless steel circles and scrap without paying central excise duty. The respondents contended they were operating under a compounded levy scheme and had not availed of Cenvat credit. The Commissioner found that the respondents sent stainless steel pattas for job work and received back stainless steel circles and scrap, which were then cleared under their own invoices.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986:
The Department claimed that the respondents were liable to pay duty as they did not file the required undertaking under Notification No. 214/86-CE. The Commissioner observed that the duty liability could only be shifted to the supplier of raw materials if an undertaking was submitted, which was not done in this case. Therefore, the job worker was liable to pay the duty.

3. Procedural Compliance and Undertaking Requirements:
The Commissioner noted that the respondents did not file any declaration for job work benefits under Notification No. 214/86-CE or Rule 16A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Department alleged suppression and mis-declaration, invoking an extended period of limitation. However, the Commissioner concluded that the job worker was the manufacturer and liable to pay duty, as the respondents did not file the necessary undertaking.

4. Penalty on Directors and Managers:
The appeals against the Director and Manager for penalty imposition were dismissed. The Director had since expired, and the appeal against him abated as per Rule 22 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1982.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, finding no merit in the Department's contentions. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the Order-in-Original was upheld.

---