TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (3) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at vide Finance Bill, 1994 introduced on 28-2-1994 the notification no. 178/88, dated 13-5-1988 was withdrawn and the benefit of notification no. 1/93 to the products falling under heading 7409.00 was extended, granting exemption upto Rs. 30 lakhs. Therefore, as advised by the local staff in a meeting held on 15-3-1994, the Registration Certificates were surrendered and the appellants became entitled to an exemption upto Rs. 30 Lakhs in the month of March, 1994 and again in the next year April, 1994 to March, 1995. That this position was even confirmed by the Principal Collector vide his C. No. IV(16)414/CE/94/7381A, dated 3-10-1994 relevant extracts from which are reproduced below : - "Point No. 3: What is the procedure of getting the brass gullies converted into untrimmed circles on job basis from hot rollers by the manufacturers of trimmed circles/cold rolled sheets not facility of hot rolling in their units when their sales is below Rs. 30 Lacs ? Clarification : Such manufacturers of trimmed brass circles/cold rolled sheets can get their billets/gullies hot rolled into untrimmed circles/sheets on job work basis as per provision of notification nos. 83/94 and 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nished marketable products but are merely used for production of the final products namely, the trimmed circles or cold rolled sheets. He also emphasised that the Commissioner has erred in holding that the appellants were engaged in hot rolling of the products which were received under the then Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on proper serial numbered challans duly authenticated by the Central Excise officers because the appellants were not required to follow any procedure under Rule 57A and 57F(2) or even under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 since they were only job workers and hence it was for the suppliers of the materials to file the necessary documents before the Central Excise officers. Ld. Counsel further stated that Ld. Commissioner's (Appeals) observations regarding Addl. Commissioner's view with reference to Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is also misplaced. It is a settled law that it was an option of the appellants either to claim modvat and work under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. or under para a(i) or para a(ii) of para 1 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. It was their grievance that the authorities below have fixed liability, if a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty under Rule 57F(2) nor claimed under exemption under Notification No. 214/86 and she has correctly held that duty liability was in respect of final product manufactured by them and not in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellants. 8. Ld. DR cited case law in support of the department's contention that (a) the demand of duty could be made only from the manufacturer (b) granting of exemption depends upon various conditions precedents as well as procedure which is required to be followed, if such exemption is sought (c) simultaneous availment of modvat credit and SSI exemption on the same goods is not permissible and (d) Doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable to taxation matters; And in this respect referred to : - (i) Ram Krishan Aggarwal v. Collector - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 35 (Cal.) (ii) Kalsi Tyres (Chandigarh) v. CCE - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 631 (Tribunal) (iii) Pfizer Ltd. v. UOI and Others - 1996 (65) ECR 155 (Bom.) (iv) Abilash Rubber Products v. CCE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 168 (Tribunal) (v) Faridabad Tools (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 (Tribunal) (vi) Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 (S.C.) (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h are excisable therefore, in the normal course, an item mentioned therein is to be treated as excisable unless proved otherwise i.e. to say in case of mention of the item in the tariff, there is an initial presumption in favour of it being excisable product but it is a rebuttable presumption and therefore, it was for the party claiming it to be non-excisable, in spite of its mention in the tariff, to discharge its burden. 14. Further, even otherwise, the untrimmed circles could be either manufactured on job work or purchased and utilised for the manufacture of trimmed circles and subsequently in the manufacture of utensils etc. The notifications cited and relied upon by both the sides in favour of their respective arguments themselves provide exemption to excisable goods only (in fact there is no need for issuing an exemption notification for an item which is not excisable). The appellants have themselves accepted that they were claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 178/88 till it was in force and clearing untrimmed circles on payment of duty accordingly. The case law cited by the ld. Counsel therefore, does not advance their cause in view of the above f....