2000 (6) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;      Duty Rs. 46,28,437/-         Penalty Rs. 46,28,437/-         under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. 2.     M/s. Bharat Electricals ...Rs. 1 lakh (Penalty) 3.     Shri V.N. Gupta....Rs. 1 lakh (Penalty) 4.     Shri Amar Nath Gupta....Rs. 1 lakh (Penalty) 2. Shri Vinay Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Sagun Foundary manufacture C.I. Castings and parts and components of I.C. Engine and P.D. Pump sets on job work basis for M/s. Bharat Electricals, applicants No. 2; that the Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they were undertaking job work of M/s. Bharat Electricals for components, parts of I.C. Engine and P.D. Pumps. The learned Advocate contended that they had disclosed the entire information to the Department and had not suppressed any fact nor they made any mis-declaration. He also emphasised that both applicants No. 1 & 2 fall within the jurisdiction of the same Asst. Commissioner and the entire facts were, therefore, known to the Department as the permission had been granted to M/s. Bharat Electricals for working under Rule 57F(2). On merit the learned Advocate submitted that the excise duty, if any payable, cannot be demanded from them in terms of Notification No. 214/86; that according to this notification the supplier of the raw materi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e manufacture of P.D. Pumps which are chargeable to nil rate of duty; that this application was filed both under Rule 57F as well as Notification No. 214/86; both the provisions are quite different inasmuch as Notification No. 214/86 is an exemption notification providing exemption from payment of duty to the job worker, and if the conditions specified in the notification are not satisfied the liability will be cast upon the job worker, he being the manufacturer. The learned D.R. also mentioned that there is nothing on record to show that any undertaking specially under Notification No. 214/86 had been given to the Department. He also emphasised that the declaration made in classification list did not give the name of the party for whom the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicant No. 1 is very high as in 1998-99 the sales were to the tune of Rs. 74.81 lakhs. 5.  We have considered the submissions of both the sides. All the issues regarding invokability of extended period of limitation, the duty liability, if any of applicant No. 1 in terms of Notification No. 214/86 will be examined in details at the time of hearing the appeal itself. However, we are of the view that applicant No. 1 has not made out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty and penalty as the basic liability to pay the central excise duty is on the manufacturer of the goods. We also observe that even in Guide to Modvat, referred to by the learned Advocate for the applicant, it was mentioned that "the primary manufacture....