TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cture of Plastic Container (jar) on job work basis for oil manufacturer namely, M/s Vimal Oil and Food Ltd, Mehsana and M/s Gujarat Spices and Oil Seed Growers Co-Op Union Ltd, Anjar. The raw materials are supplied by the principal manufacturer directly from the place of supplier to the job worker. The job workers are not paying duty on the goods manufactured on job work basis and clear to their principal. The case of the department is that the principal manufacturer are using the job worker manufactured goods in the manufacture of exempted goods, therefore, the job worker being a manufacturer are required to pay excise duty. Accordingly, the excise duty demand was confirmed against the present appellants, therefore, these appeals. 2. Sh. P.M. Dave with Sh. D.K. Trivedi Ld. Counsel & Sh. K.C. Rathod, Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that at the material time there was general impression among the job worker that job work production i.e. goods produced out of inputs and raw material supplied by others was not to be considered as goods manufactured by the job worker and liabilities of excise duty for the such goods were to be discharged by the supplier of the raw material. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to pay the duty. He submits that since after so many judgments in favour of assesee, subsequently Larger Bench has taken a different view no malafide can be attributed to the job worker appellant, therefore, demand for the extended period is not sustainable. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments: * Marsha Pharma Pvt. Ltd 2009 (248) ELT 687 (Tri.Ahmd.) against the said judgment, the Revenue filed Tax Appeal No. 2399 of 2009 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 30.09.2010. * Charak Pharma P. Ltd 2012 (278) ELT 319 (Guj.) * Rajarshi Auto Deals Pvt. Ltd vide Final Order No. A/10551/2019 dated 12.03.2019 passed by CESTAT-Ahmedabad. * Dharti Automobiles vide Final Order No. A/11715/2018 dated 30.07.2018 passed by CESTAT-Ahmedabad. He further submits that the job worker (appellants) were entitled for cenvat credit in respect of raw material supplied directly from the supplier to job work. He invited our attention to some sample invoices of Reliance Industries wherein the name of the appellant are also appearing. He submits that since the appellant was legally entitled for the cenvat credit, there cannot be any m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of job work whether job worker is liable to pay duty or the principal raw material supplier was subject to legal dispute and as submitted by Ld. Counsel there were many judgments such as Aggarwal Rolling Mills, Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd, Salem Weld Mesh, Suvikram Plastex (P) Ltd, India Fabricators (supra) were in favour of the assessee that the duty was required to be paid by the principal supplier of raw material. In the case of Thermax Babcock Wilcox Ltd (supra), Division Bench of Mumbai Tribunal referred the matter to Larger Bench and then only the Larger Bench has held that in case of job worker when the procedure under Notification No. 214/86- CE is not followed and the principal manufacturer is not discharging the excise duty on their final product, job worker is required to pay excise duty. Therefore the appellants have correctly entertained the bonafide belief that on the basis of various judgments that excise duty was payable by the principal supplier of the raw material. It is settled law in various judgments in the case of Marsha Pharma Pvt. Ltd (supra) which was upheld by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and also in case of Charak Pharma P. Ltd (supra) that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that the appellant has received material for manufacture under job work and has failed to take into account the goods manufactured on job work basis into the aggregate value of goods cleared by the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the supplier of goods have not followed the procedures prescribed under Notification 214/86. 6. The appellants have pointed out that at the material time there were various decisions which held that failure to follow the procedure prescribed under Notification 214/86- CE does not disentitle the assessee from the benefit of the said notification. Moreover, it has been argued that the liability of duty on goods manufactured on job work basis, on the manufacture vis a vis the principal who supplied the material, was also in doubt. The issue regarding liability of manufacturer vis a vis the principal was referred to Larger Bench of Tribunal. Larger Bench in case of Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. (supra) finally resolved the doubt. He pointed out that in view of above, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In 5 | P a g e E / 1 1 3 / 2 0 0 9 - D B support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Marsh....