2018 (8) TMI 790

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... various parties under job work challans and returned the resultant products to supplier's concern and collected job charges from them. Department took the view that the work carried out by the appellant amounts to "manufacture" and, since suppliers of raw materials have not given any undertaking as required under Notification No.214/86-CE, and no evidence produced to show that the said goods have been used or removed on payment of duty in the manner prescribed in the notification, appellants are required to pay appropriate duty on the said goods cleared from their factory. Accordingly, show cause notice dt. 28.01.2009 was issued inter alia proposing demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 9,90,922/- with interest as also imposition of penalty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CCE Noida - 2011 (263) ELT 81 (Tri.-Del.); GG Automotive Gears Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Indore - 2014 (12) TMI 316 - CESTAT New Delhi and S.L.O Industries Vs CCE Chennai - 2018 (3) TMI 178 - CESTAT Chennai. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri S. Govindarajan supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 The proceedings against the appellant have been initiated predominantly for the reason that their suppliers of raw materials, BHEL and L&T Ltd. have not submitted undertaking as required under job work Notification No.24/86-CE. We however find that the appellants have otherwise complied with the requirements of the said notification as applicable to them. Even para-2 of the impugned SCN narrates that appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e laws relied upon by the Ld. Advocate fully support their case. In the recent decision of CESTAT Chennai in S.L.O Industries Vs CCE Chennai (supra) relied upon by Ld. Advocate identical issue had been addressed. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under : "5. We find that even at the stage of stay application, this Tribunal vide Misc. Order No.41387/2013 dt. 03.06.2013, had (in para-4) taken of the submissions of the A.R. that "job work material was further captively used in the factory of L&T in the manufacture of transmission of towers which are finished goods and cleared on payment of duty". There is no dispute that the raw material sent by L&T to the appellant were converted as per the arrangement between the assessees....