TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (5) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The party avails the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 in respect of the clearances of hand-tools for home consumption and their value of such clearance was only Rs. 3,48,335.35 during 1992-93 (cleared under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended) and during the current year i.e. 1993-94 upto 9/93 is only Rs. 1,62,846.67 bulk of their clearances is exported out of India without payment of duty under simplified procedure. Value of their export clearance effected without payment of duty was Rs. 13,79,33,426.46 during 1992-93 and is Rs. 3,61,40,227.69 during 1993-94 upto 9/93. 2.ii As regards the aste and scrap of iron and steel the party availed exemption under Notification No. 171/88-C.E., dated 13-3-1988 and Notification No. 214/86-C.E. dated 25-3-1986 simultaneously. The waste and scrap arisen during the manufacture of hand-tools is cleared by the party under Notification No. 214/86 to job worker who remits it for converting into ingots and then such ingots are processed into bars and rods through hot rolling process by the job workers only. Such bars and rods are received back by the party without payment of any duty by the job work....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants were called upon to explain as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,22,080/- should not be demanded on them under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 3.i In response to the show cause notice the appellants stated that it was not mentioned in the show cause notice as to what condition is not fulfilled in respect of Notification No. 171/88, dated 13-5-1988. They have submitted that the exemption to waste and scrap emerging during the course of manufacture of hand-tools is available under Notification No. 171/88, dated 13-5-1988 as amended because the waste and scrap has arisen from duty paid material. They had stated that whatever duty was payable on raw material had been paid. The goods were cleared by the job workers under Notification No. 214/86 at nil rate of duty. They relied on several citations and submitted that appropriate payment of duty should be taken to mean duty that ought to have been paid or contracted to have been paid. They submitted that since such duty in terms of Notification No. 214/86 is `nil' the goods cleared without payment of duty, therefore, ought to be taken duty paid goods. Therefore, they submitted that the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... undertaking as supplier of raw material is required under Notification. Therefore, there is no cause for demand of duty from them on bars and rods manufactured by the job-workers and cleared under the provisions of Notification. 4. The Learned Deputy Collector after giving an opportunity of hearing rejected all their pleas and held that the unambiguous pattern of duty liability envisaged in terms of Notification No. 171/88 read with Notification No. 214/86 is to save the manufacturers from cascading effect of duty. It is not open to fissures and channels, for evasion of duty or for sabotaging the duty structure with the explicit purpose of evasion of duty. He has held that as per Notification No. 171/88 as amended the goods ought to have discharged the duty leviable. Since the party had not discharged this crucial burden and goods in question have not borne even an iota of duty, it cannot claim benefit of this Notification. He has held that the argument put forth by the Advocate has `tedious argument with an insidious intent of evading duty'. Thus, the duty demanded [was] confirmed. 5. On appeal, the Learned Collector also confirmed the findings of the Deputy Colle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e West Regional Bench has held that : "the proforma of AR 3A itself provides for assessment of duty. The only provision is that the duty need not be paid, if the goods are utilised in the manufacture of the goods to be exported. We also looked at the actual AR 3A in respect of the clearances in this case, where the duty has been assessed. The department also would enforce the recovery of duty as per the assessment in AR 3A, if the goods are not utilised for the intended purpose. Hence we are unable to appreciate the plea of the Ld. JDR that the finished goods have been cleared on charging to nil rate of duty. The goods have been assessed on appropriate rate of duty and the only concession given is that they can be removed without payment of duty for fulfilment of the export requirement. Since the wording of the rule refers to only exempted goods and goods charged to nil rate of duty, the goods which are assessed to proper rate of duty but allowed to be cleared under Bond, cannot, in our view, come within the purview of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 56A. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals) and the appeal from the Revenue is reject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not avail the benefit of both the Notifications. The job workers already availed benefit of Notification 214/86 and hence goods coming from job work [are] required to be paid and benefit cannot be extended. He submitted that the citations relied are not relevant. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the judgments referred to before us. We notice that this issue has been gone into in great detail in the appellant's own case by three member bench of the Tribunal as per Final Order No. E/23/95-B1, dated 23-1-1995 [reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 352 (Tri.)]. It is a detailed order by which the terms of the Notifications and the ratios of the judgments have been discussed in great detail. The Tribunal has held in paras 9 to 13 as follows: - "9. In view of the said stand taken by the parties before us, contentions are limited to the interpretation that they put to the words used in Notification No. 171/88, dated 13-5-1988 namely, "on which duty of excise leviable under the said Schedule or the Addl. duty leviable under Section (3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as the case may be, has already been paid, but t....