TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on job work basis. The appellants have manufactured HTC wagons on job work basis availing the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25 March 1986. The principal manufacture opted for clearance of HTC wagons directly from the premises of the job worker (the appellants) under Rule 4 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The HTC wagons were cleared by the principal manufacture for Research and Development Establishment of Indian Defence, availing the exemption Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1 March 1997. 2. The Department has entertained a view that the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1 March, 1997 has wrongly been availed and the provisions of Rule 4, 6 and 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules have wrongly been availed by the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention of the appellant that they have manufactured and cleared the HTC wagons in their factory under job work arrangements availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25 March 1986. It has been the contention of the learned Advocate that it is wrong on the part of the Department to allege that the appellant have availed benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE under which the HTC wagons were cleared without payment of duty for the Research and Development work. It has been added that in fact the HTC wagons after being manufactured on behalf of the principal manufacture namely M/s Titagarh Wagons Ltd., were cleared on the invoice No. 267060 dated 29 March 2011 to M/s Titagarh Wagons Ltd. The learned Advocate has taken us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n intent to evade duty, that the senior audit officer of the Department has audited the books of accounts of the appellant in the financial year 2011-2012 for which they have already made a detailed reply vide their letter dated 3 April 2012 while the show cause notice in this case has been issued on 3 February 2016. It has been the contention of the appellant that the demand is certainly barred by period of limitation as they have not been any elements of fraud, suppression, willful mis-statement or collusion with intent to evade duty in their case. The learned Advocate has taken shelter of various decisions of Apex Court as well as this Tribunal in this regard. Some of case laws cited by the learned Advocate are as follows :- (i)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out payment of duty to the principal manufacturer and it is the responsibilities of the principal manufacturer to pay duty on such goods, and, therefore, I feel that no wrong has been done by the appellant upto this particular point. The Department has alleged that the appellant have wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE. I feel that the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE has in fact been availed by the principal manufacturer M/s TWL and if there is any violation of the terms of the Notification No. 10/97-CE, I am of the view that in such a circumstances, the short payment of the duty should have been demanded from the principal manufacturer namely M/s TWL. In view of the facts of this matter, I feel that the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid goods shall be (a) used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products in his factory; or (b) removed on payment of duty for home consumption from his factory. In the present matter the Appellants have furnished an undertaking as stipulated in the Notification. Further, they have used the transformer oil for repair of the old and used transformers and as such have removed the transformer oil for home consumption instead of using the same in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products in their factory. The Notification permits them to remove the impugned goods for home consumption but "on payment of duty" which they have not done. Accordingly duty is payable by them and has been rightly demanded from them. There i....