TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by a common order as the issue involved is common and they arise out of the same impugned order. In Appeal No. E/22225/2014, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 22.68 crores approximately for the period 2008-2012 by invoking the extended period. The other two demands of around Rs. 1.75 crores and Rs. 45 lakhs involved in the other two appeals are within the limitation period. Fourth appeal is against penalty imposed on the Director. 2. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri V.M. Doiphode, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Nigam, A.R. for the Revenue, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCBs). They were purchasing the raw material on their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment of duty. In case of failure, he also undertakes to pay the duty. 5. Undisputed facts in the present case are that the provisions and conditions of Notification No. 214/1986-CE as also of Notification No. 83/94- CE, the benefit of which was claimed only at the time of adjudication were not followed by the appellants. Accordingly, the lower authorities have held that the benefit of the Notification is not available to them and inasmuch as the appellant is the manufacturer of PPCBs in question, they are under legal obligation to pay duty of excise on the said goods so manufactured by them. Accordingly, demands raised against them stands confirmed along with imposition of penalties of identical amounts. 6. Learned advocate Shri V.M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecting full deposit of the dues in question. 8. We find that the facts are not in dispute. The legal issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the non-fulfillment of conditions of Notification No. 214/1986-CE as also of Notification No. 83/1994-CE dated 11.04.94 can be held to be a procedural violation so as to extend the benefit of the Notification to the appellant. Without referring to the earlier decisions of the Tribunal as also of some of the High Courts, which were partly in favour of the assessee and partly against them, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a later case of CCE New Delhi Vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal [2010 (260) E.L.T.3(S.C.) has considered an identical situation. While holding that the be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i-finished goods to give an undertaking to the proper officer of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of the job worker to the effect that such goods shall be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product in his factory and removed from his factory either on payment of duty or without payment of duty under bond for export or to units in free trade zone or to 100% EOUs etc. are the situations covered therein. He has also to produce evidence that the goods have been used or removed in the manner prescribed in the notification itself and the said supplier also undertaken the responsibility of discharging the liabilities in respect of central excise duty leviable on the final products. As such it is seen that the....