2020 (10) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with penalty for the period April, 2008 to August, 2009. 2. In addition to manufacturing of the final products within its factory, the appellant also engages other manufacturers (industries) to do manufacturing activity on job work basis, for which raw materials are supplied by the Appellant. The manufacturing activity in such cases is undertaken by job workers in their own premises. Appellant neither operated under rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (Credit Rules), nor undertook any responsibility of using job worked goods in further manufacture of dutiable goods and of discharging duty liability thereon, in terms of Notification No. 83/94-CE dated 11.04.1994, 84/94-CE dated 11.04.1994 or 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. Further,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1944 (Excise Act) by invoking the extended period of limitation along with interest under Section 11AB /11 AA ibid and penalty under Section 11 AC ibid, read with Rule 25 of the Excise Rules and under Rule 27 ibid. The show cause notice alleged that the value of clearances made by the Appellant from its own factory as well as from the factories of the job-workers are liable to be clubbed in terms of Para 2(v) & (vii) of Notification No.8/2003 CE, for denial of benefit of exemption under the said notification. 6. Appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated 04.03.2013 rebutting the allegations contained in the show cause notice. The ld. Additional Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original dated 11.03.2013 (Orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Hon'ble Tribunal on the following grounds which are independent of and without prejudice to each other. 10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, urges that the similar issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of sister unit of the appellant viz. Mewar Hi-tech Engineering Ltd., whereby this Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/51162/2019-EX(DB), decided the issue in favour of the appellant. 11. Ld. Counsel further urges that admittedly the goods have been manufactured by the job workers independently without any control and supervision of the appellant. Only for mere supply of raw materials by the appellant, would not cast excise duty liability on the appellant. Further, the transactions between the appellant and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce has been issued pursuant to the audit and the issue is wholly interpretational in nature. Further, the appellant was under bona fide belief that under the facts and circumstances, the duty liability, if any, arises on the job workers, as the job workers are the real manufacturers as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act. 14. The ld. Authorised Representative for the Department relied upon the impugned order. 15. He further urges that though the clearances of final products manufactured by the job workers, were made directly by the job workers to the buyers of the goods, but as the commercial invoices for sale of such goods have been raised by the appellant, and the job workers have only received their job charges, thus, the ....