TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Excise, Vapi confirming Central Excise duty of Rs. 21,60,969/- (Rs.Twenty One lakh, sixty thousands, nine hundred and sixty nine only) along with interest and imposing penalty of Rs. 21 lakhs on the respondent-assessee M/s KLJ Plasticizers, Silvassa, has been set aside. 2. Revenue has been represented by the learned Authorized Representative, Shri S.N. Gohil and the Respondent-Assessee M/s KLJ Plasticizers has been represented by the learned Advocate, Shri Jigar Shah. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- i) M/S KLJ Plasticizers are engaged in the manufacture of Phthalate Plasticizers viz. "D.O.P." 'D.B.P." "D.I.M.P." in liquid form, falling under Ch.S.H. No. 2917 of Central Excise Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he intermediate goods holds an Advance Intermediate Licence or has applied for such licence to the Lice sing Authority and has obtained an acknowledgement for the Same, or as the case may be, has been permitted by the licensing authority or the Committee to manufacture for supply of such goods to the ultimate exporter; (ii) The provisions of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 shall be followed mutatis mutandis; (iii) However, the Respondent-Assessee failed to comply the Condition No.(ii) of the Notification No. 44/2001-CE(NT), dt.26.06.2001 and thereby they failed to comply with the provision of sub-rule 7 of Rule 3 and sub-rule 1 of Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Duty Exemption Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "the ultimate exporter") and their exportation out of India, to any country except Nepal and Bhutan, namely :- (i) the manufacturer of the intermediate goods holds an Advance Intermediate Licence or has applied for such licence to the Licensing Authority and has obtained an acknowledgement for the same, or as the case may be, has been permitted by the licensing authority or the Committee to manufacture for supply of such goods to the ultimate exporter; (ii) the provisions of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 shall be followed, mutatis mutandis; (iii) .... (iv).... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as the said Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner). (2) The. manufacturer shall make separate application in respect of each supplier of subject goods. (3) The manufacturer shall execute a general bond with surety or security. Provided that . (4) .... (5) .... (6) Of the four copies of the application referred to On sub-rule (5), one copy shall be forwarded to the jurisdictional range Superintendent of the manufacturer of the subject goods, two copies shall be handed over to the manufacturer and one copy shall be retained, by the said Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner; (7) One copy of the application referred to in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of Rule 3(7) and Rule 4(1) of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 and it was receivers/buyers of their goods, who were to comply with those conditions of the Notification No.44/2001-CE(NT) (supra). This plea of shifting the responsibility of fulfillment of the conditions of the Notification on the receiver/buyer of the goods is misplaced and not correct as per law. It is the prime responsibility of the manufacturer, who claims the exemption from payment of duty that the conditions of the Rules/Notification under which they are claiming exemption are strictly complied with. 4.4 CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Indofil Chemical Co. Vs CCE Mumbai ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Chemical Co., the CESTAT holds that the Assessee has no choice but to follow the condition(s) given in the rules and the notification. In the present case, when the conditions have not been fullfilled, necessary consequences are to be faced by the Respondent-Assessee. 4.6 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Allahabad Vs Ginni Filaments Ltd - 2005 (181) ELT 145 (SC) inter alia holds that the condition(s) of the notification cannot be ignored. Consuquently, the present Respondent-Assessee is liable to make payment of Central Excise duty when the condition(s) of Notification No. 44/2001- CE(NT) (supra) have not been followed. Hence, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the demand of Central Excise duty....