TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acked ready for marketing garments are brought to the godown premises of the appellants from where the goods are dispatched to various customers. The garments traded by the appellants are classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 6201.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and prior to 1-3-2001, the tariff rate on the goods was "Nil" by the Finance Bill, of 2001. This rate was amended to 16% ad valorem. 2. Consequent to the Finance Bill effective from 1-3-2001, Officers of Central Excise visited the godown of these traders in the Bombay Market. They undertook a detailed inventory of the finished ready to market garments lying there. These garments were found to be liable for duty by the officers, since they were bearing a registered brand name ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir Warehouse and cleared from there. He was the manufacturer by virtue of above Rule as the goods were cleared finally from the premises of the assessee. (b) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. [1996 (83) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] as relied upon by the appellants was distinguishable since in that case the Court was dealing with the goods manufactured prior to introduction of relevant tariff entry. In the present case ready-made garment falling under Chapter 62 and as per the assessee's own argument were leviable to 'NIL' rate of duty as on 28-2-2001. The ready-made garments being always excisable, therefore the change made by the Finance Bill, 2001 was only to raise th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rer and the assessee. They were liable to pay the duty levied on excisable goods under the Central Excise Act at the time of removal of the garments fully manufactured from their factory on valuation arrived at of all costs up to the factory gate as per the formula classified by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints case (Supra). This liability for levy and discharge of the same under the Central Excise Act cannot be shifted to the Trader i.e. the appellant on removals prior to 1-3-2001 from Job Worker's premises. (b) There is no material that removals have not been effected by the Job Workers prior to 00.00 hours of 1-3-2001. The garments found in stock in appellant's godown are appropriate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds in the manner provided in rule 8 or under any other law, and no excisable goods, on which any duty is payable, shall be removed without payment of duty from any place, where they are produced or manufactured, or from a warehouse, unless otherwise provided : Provided that the goods falling under Chapter 62 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) produced or manufactured by a job worker may be removed without payment of duty leviable thereon and the duty of excise leviable on such goods shall be paid by the person referred to in sub-rule (3), as if such goods have been produced or manufactured by him, on the date of removal of such goods from his premises registered under rule 9 : Explanation - It is he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. I am, therefore, of the opinion that appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed. Sd/- (Krishna Kumar) Member (J) 9. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - The matters were heard on 12-1-2004 and the orders prepared and referred to learned Member (Judicial) for consideration on 20-1-2004. File along with the proposed order has been received back today. From the order enclosed at page 6, it appears that there is a difference of opinion and the question of the difference has not been framed by the learned Member (Judicial). The same may kindly be framed and send at an early date. Sd/- (S.S. Sekhon) Member (T) 1-3-2004 10. [Order per : Krishna Kumar, Member (J)]. - File received on 8-4-2004 on my re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch goods from his premises registered under Rule 9." Sub-rule (3) provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), every person who gets the goods, falling under Chapter 62 .........., produced or manufactured on his account on job work, shall pay the duty leviable on such goods, at such time ...." Proviso to sub-rule (3) provides that "such person may authorise the job worker to pay the duty leviable on such goods on his behalf. From the language of the above Rule under which duty liability has been fastened upon the appellants in the present case, it is seen that excise duty on goods falling under Chapter 62 is payable by the person who gets the goods produced or manufactured on his account on job work, if the goods are....