TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis to M/s Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. (in short RIBL) located at Parwanoo in the state of Himachal Pradesh. M/s RIBL contracted the Triveni to get the plastic bottles manufactured on job work basis under the provisions of Notification No. 214/86 dated 25.03.1986. M/s RIBL will discharge the liability on the goods manufactured on job work by M/s Triveni on 26.02.2004 and sent raw material for job work to M/s Tirveni on the basis of the undertaking given by M/s RIBL under Notification 214/86 ibid with the Asst. Commissioner Central Excise having jurisdiction over Triveni. M/s Triveni manufactured the bottles of job work basis and cleared without payment of duty to M/s RIBL an investigation was conducted. On the basis of investigation, a sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be set aside. He further submits that the activity on job work was in the knowledge of the department, therefore, the extended period of limitation is also not invocable as there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. He relied on the decision this Tribunal in the case of M/s Kanohar Electricals Ltd. reported in 2005 (180) ELT 129 (Tri. Del.) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (321) ELT A136 (S.C). Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the goods have been manufactured by Triveni Polymers Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, Piao, Maniyari, Kundli, Haryana and the duty is to be deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (Supra). In such cases, the duty is to be demanded directly from M/s RIBL, therefore we hold that the impugned order lacks merits demanded duty from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni, therefore, demand is on that ground is set aside. Issue no. II We find that in this case, the show cause notice has been issued by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak, who is not having jurisdiction over M/s RIBL. In fact, the jurisdiction of M/s RIBL with the Commissioner of Central Exercise at Chandigarh, who has not issued the show cause notice, the issue of jurisdiction has been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Kanohar Electricals Ltd. (Supra), wherein this Tribunal observed as under: "5. We have considered the submissions of bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons mentioned in the Notification. Once they remove the goods for home consumption after receiving the same from job worker, the liability to pay duty of excise is on them. Consequently the jurisdiction to demand duty by issuing show cause notice is to be exercised by the Proper Officer who is having the jurisdiction over the factory of the Appellants. The decision in the case of Span Heat Transfer Equipment Mfrs. P. Ltd. is not applicable as the facts are entirely different. The issue involved therein was whether the goods cleared within the value of Rs. 30 lakhs for the purpose of Notification No. 1/93 would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 214/86. The said view has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s....