Job-work undertaking covers only central excise duty, not a separate additional excise levy under another statute.

Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was construed as using the expression "duty of excise" to mean Central Excise duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and not additional excise duty levied under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. An undertaking furnished under such a job-work or exemption notification therefore does not automatically extend to a separate statutory levy unless the language clearly so provides. On that construction, the declaration did not prima facie cover the additional excise duty demanded, and recovery was stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the undertaking given under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. extended to liability to pay additional excise duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.

Analysis: The expression "duty of excise" in Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was read as referring to Central Excise duty payable under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The levy of additional excise duty arises under a separate enactment, namely the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and is not the same as the duty contemplated by the notification. On that construction, the declaration furnished by the assessee did not, prima facie, cover the additional excise duty demanded in the case.

Conclusion: The appellants were held, prima facie, not liable under the notification to discharge the additional excise duty, and pre-deposit of duty and penalty was dispensed with with stay of recovery pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An undertaking under an exemption or job-work notification covering "duty of excise" extends only to the duty specifically contemplated by that notification and does not, without clear language, include a levy imposed under a separate statute.

---