AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red under Rule 12 B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In terms of Rule 12 B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, "notwithstanding with anything contained in these rules, every person not being an export-oriented unit or a unit located in special economic zone, who gets yarns or fabrics produced or manufactured on his account, on job work basis, shall obtain registeration, maintain accounts, pay duty leviable on such goods and comply with all the relevant provisions of these rules as if he is an assessee." In terms of the CBEC Circular No.795/28/2004 dated 28.07.2004, "the person registered under Rule 12 B even though not undertaking any manufacturing activity on his own and not having a factory, should be treated as manufacturer for all prac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ob worker. The job worker shall fill up the particulars of date and time of removal of goods before the clearance of the goods. After such clearance, the job worker shall intimate to the said person, the date and time of clearance of the goods for completion of the particulars by the said person in the duplicate copy of the invoice." Accordingly, the Department was of the view that in respect of the clearances for export made by the appellant from the job worker's premises, the duty would be chargeable. 1.2 The unit of the appellant was visited by the officers on 24.11.2004 and at that time though there was a stock of processed fabrics valued at Rs. 5,95,136/-, there were no records. On being asked, the appellant explained that the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these two appeals have been filed by the appellant and its Director. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that during the period of dispute, the appellant, though not having any factory and not directly engaged in the manufacture of any excisable goods and who were getting the grey fabrics procured by them processed on job work basis, was registered in terms of the provisions of Rule 12 B of the Central Excise Rules, that in terms of the Board's Circular No.196/26/84-CX dated 28.07.2004 the appellant was to be treated as manufacturer for all practical purposes, that the appellant du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms of the provisions of Rule 19 by following the procedure prescribed under this rule and fulfilling its conditions, the benefit of the duty free clearance cannot be denied. Shri Sharma, therefore, pleaded that duty demand of Rs. 19,41,761/- is without any basis and is not sustainable. With regard to confiscation of the goods valued at about Rs. 5,95,136/-, Shri Sharma pleaded that the goods had been accounted for in the account being mentioned in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules and at the time of the officers' visit to their premises, RG-I register had been sent to Head Office for computerization and subsequently, the stock account maintained by the appellant had been produced on 29.11.2004 and that in view of this, the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on job work basis were exported by the appellant company directly from the job worker's premises without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules. There is no dispute that the clearance had been affected in ARE-Is duly filled in and signed by them and the proof of export has been received. The only point of dispute is whether in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 B, the appellant company was liable to pay duty in respect of these goods. The stand of the Department is that in view of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of the Rule 12 B that "even if the person registered under Rule 12 B of the Central Excise Rules, desires clearance of the excisable goods for home consumption or for export from the premises of the job worker,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is no dispute that while at the time of officers' visit to the factory on 24.11.2004, the RG-I register was not there but the same was produced on 29.11.2004. In this regard, while the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative is that register was maintained only upto the August, 2004. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of officers' visit to the factory, RG-I register was sent to the Head Office for computerization and when it was produced on 29.11.2004, the same had been updated. Be that as it may, in our view, the imposition of fine of Rs. 50,000/- is on a much higher side, when duty involved on the goods is only Rs. 38,000/-. In view of this, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten T....