AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods not received back only on the supplier of goods. He cited para 2 of the Notification No.21/86-CE dated 25/03/1986 which reads as follows: The exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to the?. said goods in respect of which, - (i) the supplier of the raw materials or semi-finished goods avails of the credit of duty paid on inputs under rule 57A of the said Rules, and gives an undertaking to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of the job worker that the said goods will be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products; (ii) the said supplier produces evidence that the said goods have been so used; and (iii) the said supplier undertakes the responsibilities of discharging the liabilities in respect of Central Excise duty leviable on the finished products. THE TABLE Sl. No. Description of the said goods Description of final products (1) (2) (3) Goods classifiable under any headings of Chapters 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 48, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was of the Kutch unit but fixed it on them only because they had paid. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CC (P) Jamnagar 2015-TIOL-120-SC-CUS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "Clearly the samples drawn by the Inspector in the present case, have been drawn contrary to the express provisions of IS 436. On this count also, the samples being drawn not in accordance with law, test reports based on the same cannot be looked at. The Tribunal's judgment has proceeded on the basis that even though the samples were drawn contrary to law, the appellants would be estopped because their representative was present when the samples were drawn and they did not object immediately. This is a completely perverse finding both on fact and law. On fact, it has been more than amply proved that no representative of the appellant was, in fact, present at the time the Customs Inspector took the samples. Shri K.M. Jani who was allegedly present not only stated that he did not represent the Clearing Agent of the appellants in that he was not their employee but also stated that he was not present when t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OL-96-SC-CX and asserted that in the absence of any malafide and Revenues neutral situation no penalty can be imposed. 4. Learned AR pointed out that there was a clear jurisdiction in demanding duty on the Sion unit with a view of the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Xerox India Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut 2011 (270) ELT 0395-(Tri-Del). He highlighted specifically para 88 of the said decision which reads as follows: 88. It is settled law that when a cause of action in relation to offendable incident or in relation to series of activities which are offendable or the violation of the provisions of law arises within the jurisdiction of different investigating officers or adjudicating officers, every such officer will have jurisdiction to investigate and or adjudicate upon such offence or violation arising in all such territories. Merely because installation was carried out beyond territorial jurisdiction of Meerut Commissionerate once it is established that the major activity of manufacturing in relation to such machines was carried out at Rampur which lies within the jurisdiction of Meerut Commissionerate, it cannot be said that Commissioner at Meerut had no jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... periods for which interest is leviable may not be put together and dealt with in one consolidated provision instead of being split up in Sections 11AA and 11AB. Also, there is much scope to reorganise all the different sub-sections of Section 11A and to present the scheme of that section in a more coherent and readable form." 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant argued that on perusal of the Order-in-original clearly shows that they were persuaded by the Revenue to pay duty and they have not paid they duty voluntarily. He further argued that they clearly submitted in their letter dated 11/12/2007 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise that no credit was fall at the Kutch unit and this assertion of there have not taken any credit, the question of demand of duty and interest does not arise. 6. I have gone through the case records and the submissions made by both sides. It is noticed that primary question to be decided is if the jurisdictional authorities at Sion had the jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice in this matter. On perusal of the Notification No.214/86, it is seen that para 2 of the said notification clearly lays down that it shall be the responsibility ....