TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave not been fulfilled. Here, one of the conditions of the Notification 214/86-CE (Supra) is that the responsibility of discharging liability of Central Excise duty on the final product, is to be honoured by the Principal Manufacturer, as per the Declaration filed with the Central Excise Authority ; this has not been complied with. 3. The appellant was issued SCN by Central Excise treating them as manufacturer under Central Excise law for payment of duty of Central Excise for the job work done by them for the Principal Manufacturer (s). The SCN is dated 07.10.2008, which was adjudicated by the Order-in-Original No.47/Addl.Commissioner/Noida/2009 dated 26.10.2009, confirming the demand of Rs. 39,53,508/- along with interest and imposing e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they paid service tax as advised by the Audit Party of the Department. 4.2 The appellant also states that they have already made a predeposit of Rs. 15.00 lakhs as per the CESTAT's Stay Order No.694/10-CEX dated 03.09.2010 on 27.09.2010. 4.3 The appellant further states that it is not their fault that the Principal Manufacturer (s) have not paid duty on the goods cleared after job work, when it was their Principal Manufacturer's responsibility to pay Central Excise duty ; they were never informed either by the Department or by the Principal Manufacturer (s) that they were supposed to pay any Central Excise duty. When they were doing job work under Notification 214/86-CE (Supra), it is not their responsibility to pay Central Excise du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt cannot fix the responsibility of payment of Central Excise duty for the job work done by them. 5. The Revenue represented by ld.A.R., Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, vehemently argues that as one of the conditions of the Notification 214/86-CE (Supra) i.e payment of duty on the goods cleared by the job worker has not been honoured, it is the responsibility of the job worker, who has done the manufacturing job to pay the duty of Central Excise. The job worker cannot argue that it is not their responsibility to pay duty when actually, it is they, who have done the job work for the Principal Manufacturer and when there has been a declaration filed with the Central Excise (though by the Principal Manufacturer), that the responsibility of discharg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hiding any facts from the Revenue authority. Therefore, when there is not any suppression of facts by the appellant, any demand of Central Excise duty can be made for normal period of one year only. In other words, liability of payment of duty would be for the preceding one year from the date of SCN, i.e. 07.10.2008 ; Central Excise duty liability will be for the clearances made by the appellant assessee for the said period of preceding one year. 6.2 The appellant has already been given the benefit of refund of service tax paid by the lower adjudicating authority, which can be adjusted against their liability of payment of Central Excise duty for the one year period being confirmed by this order. We also take note that the appellant mad....