TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis on the material supplied by M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd (M/s. TISCO) and cleared the processed goods on payment of duty to M/s. TISCO. The case of the department is that the clearances made to M/s. TISCO is not sale therefore the same is not permissible under DTA sale by an 100% EOU. Accordingly, the exemption available under the notification No. 1/95-CE is not applicable. Consequently, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal by relying on the his earlier order in the respondent's own case which was subsequently upheld by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the impugned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Central Excise duty is not under contest. b. The Commissioner has relied upon the findings in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (73) 497 (S.C.) and that the applications of minor items by the job worker would not detract from the nature and character of his work and thereafter found that the conversion performed by the EOU was nothing but job work. A perusal of this order reveals that it is the nature of the processing done, which would result in the coverage of the definition of the term job work. When a new product, commercially different from the raw material supplied, would emerge, in that case, upon the process undertaken, would amount to manufacture under the Central Excise A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icable on Silicon Manganese since manufacture took place is not contested by ld. DR. The other findings on the EXIM Policy definition and Board's instructions permitting job work as interpreted by the ld. Commissioner will not alter the position of the EOU being a manufacturer of the Silicon Manganese in question. When the EOU is to be held as a manufacturer of Silicon Manganese in this case and duty is being demanded from the said EOU, the question of the EOU being a job worker and or sub-contractor for TISCO cannot be upheld on the facts of this case. c. Since the finding of the Commissioner, in para 17(ii), that the transactions between the EOU and TISCO was only return of the goods, after job work, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner, SEEPZ dated 27-2-2002, covering the operations in this case as permissible under para 9.9(b) of the EXIM Policy, is not in conformity with the legal provisions, cannot be upheld. As regards the reliance on letter dated 23-8-2002 in para 19(ii) and the statement of the Vice President of the appellants in para 19(iii), notwithstanding, we find no reasons to arrive at a finding that the subject clearances were not permissible under para 9.9(b) of the EXIM Policy. e. The proposals in the show cause notices proceed to deny the clearances effected under the first proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, i.e 'allowed to be sold in India' and proceeds to levy the duty under main Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants. In view of the findings, the duty demands as arrived cannot be upheld, they are set aside. Since no duty demands can be made, the question of interest and penalty will not arise and are required to be set aside. h. There is no reason in view of the findings herein above to arrive any confiscation liabilities of the goods already cleared and/or detained. Orders to this effect are, therefore, set aside and appeals to be allowed. i. Since no duty demands and confiscation liability is being upheld, the penalty on the Chairman cannot be upheld. From the above decision of this Tribunal, it can be seen that issue being identical is no longer res integra. Even the Reven....