TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in investigations. The investigations revealed that the respondents M/s. Stay-On-Papers (P) Ltd (SPPL for short) received certain materials from M/s. Laser Spectra Technology Private Limited, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu (LSTPL for short) for doing some job work. According to the DGAE, after SPPL processed the film by adhesive coating and lamination the resultant goods become Self Adhesive Polyester (Holographic) Film (PPHF in short). The goods were returned to LSTPL. The main charges against the respondents are as follows : (i) The goods were misdeclared as Chromo art label stock and Maplitho label stock falling under Chapter sub-heading 4811.20 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. (ii) The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed the order on the supposition that the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Holographic Security Marking Systems P. Ltd. (supra) was only an additional evidence which was not examined by the original authority. This is not correct. The original authority examined the decision at para 34 of the Order-in-Original and came to the conclusion that the goods covered in the present case and those covered by the Tribunal's decision are different. (b) The process of manufacture of the impugned goods as explained by Shri K. Ganesan, Managing Director of LSPTL in his statement given under Section 14 is different from the process of manufacture of goods involved in the case of respondents. Hence the case law relied by the Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....work returned the goods to them. This fact is also not in dispute. Under the Central Excise Law there is no need for the job worker to pay duty when he returns, the goods to the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal in the case of M. Tex & Anr. v. CCE, Jaipur [2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 (Tribunal) = 2000 (39) RLT 1091 (CEGAT)] has held that when the job worker returned the goods after processing he is not liable to pay the excise duty. The principal manufacturer will pay the duty. In this connection the observations of the third Member (Majority view) is as follows : "33. For the reasons already recorded by me, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the ld. Vice President in his dissenting Order, holding that the appellants [job....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... principal manufacturer is liable for payment of duty on the goods. It is his duty to inform the jurisdictional Superintendent of the job worker. Even the adjudication authority in the following para observes the inadequacy of the investigation. "39. From the above statements I agree with the learned Advocate that M/s. LSTPL is the principal guiding force in this fraudulent venture to dupe the exchequer for tax liability but since the show cause notice do not seek imposition of any penalty on M/s. LSTPL or on Mr. Ganeshan, I do not like to go into this issue and I also do not to go into the Annexure B relied upon documents submitted by Shri Ganeshan wherein details of invoices raised by M/s. Stay on Papers Pvt. Ltd. comprising invoi....