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>Appellant cannot be held liable for excise duty on goods manufactured by job workers at their premises under section 2(f)</h1> <h3>M/s. Cosmic Engineers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II And Shri Ramen Kumar Agarwal, Authorized Signatory M/s. Cosmic Engineers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II</h3> M/s. Cosmic Engineers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II And Shri Ramen Kumar Agarwal, Authorized Signatory M/s. Cosmic Engineers Versus ... Issues:1. Whether the Appellant is liable for excise duty as a manufacturer of electrical items supplied to Electricity Boards.2. Whether the Show Cause Notice issued to the Appellant is time-barred.Analysis:Issue 1: Liability for Excise DutyThe Appellant, engaged in manufacturing railway wagon components, also supplied electrical items to Electricity Boards. The Department alleged the Appellant was the actual manufacturer of these items, leading to a demand of Rs. 82,32,163. The Appellant argued they outsourced manufacturing to job workers and were not the actual manufacturers. The Tribunal noted the Appellant's lack of manufacturing facility for electrical items and reliance on job workers for production. Referring to previous cases, the Tribunal held that job workers, not the Appellant, were the manufacturers. Citing the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal emphasized that when manufacturing occurs at a job worker's premises, the job worker is deemed the manufacturer. Consequently, the Appeal was allowed, and the demand set aside.Issue 2: Time Bar on Show Cause NoticeThe Appellant contended that the Show Cause Notice issued in 2008 for the period 2003-2006 was time-barred. The Department had gathered information between 2006-2008, justifying the delayed issuance of the notice. The Tribunal rejected the time-bar argument, stating that the Department needed time to gather all relevant details before issuing the notice. Thus, the Show Cause Notice was deemed timely, and the Appellant's plea on time bar was dismissed.The Tribunal also set aside the penalty imposed on the Director, as the Appellant's liability for excise duty was negated. The judgment was pronounced on 09.08.2024 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata, with detailed reasoning provided for each issue raised and resolved during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 