TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 06.06.16 Amod Stamping Pvt. Ltd (Daman) Rs. 6,33,08,063/- alongwith Interest and Penalty of Rs. 6,33,08,063/-. 2 E/11660/2016-DB DMN-EXCUS-000-COM-008-16-17 dt. 06.06.16 Amod Stamping Pvt. Ltd (Vadodara) Rs. 4,76,52,148/- (Penalty) 3 E/11661/2016-DB DMN-EXCUS-000-COM-008-16-17 dt. 06.06.16 Amod Steel Processors (Dist. Vadodara) Rs. 1,56,55,915/- (Penalty) 4 E/11662/2016-DB DMN-EXCUS-000-COM-008-16-17 dt. 06.06.16 ShriTanmay Patel (Director) Rs. 50,00,000/- (Penalty) M/s. Amod Stamping P. Ltd.,Vadodara:-SCN F. No. DGCEI/AZU/36-327/2012-13 dt. 27.02.2014 Period Invoved: 2008-2012 Sr. No Appeal No OIO No Appellant Duty demand/penalty 5 E/13913/2014-DB VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-20-14-15 dt. 30.09.14 Amod Stamping Pvt. Ltd (Vadodara) Rs. 3,81,95,652/- alongwith Interest and Penalty of Rs. 3,81,95,652/-. 6 E/13914/2014-DB VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-20-14-15 dt.30.09.14 Amod Stamping Pvt. Ltd (Daman) Rs. 25,00,000/- (Penalty) 7 E/13990/2014-DB VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-20-14-15 dt. 30.09.14 Tanmay S Patel (Director) Rs. 25,00,000/- (Penalty) 8 E/13991/2014-DB VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-20-14-15 dt. 30.09.14 Malhotra Transport Co Rs, 1,00,000/- (Penalty) 9 E/13992/2014-DB V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods were sent by Daman unit to Vadodara for job work, under job work procedure. It is his claim that while processed goods were in fact returned back from Vadodara to Daman and cleared from Daman to various customers on duty payment, evenif for the sake of argument, it is believed that the goods were in fact cleared from Vadodara directly to customers, even then since admittedly the duty was paid at Daman on sale price to customers, neither Cenvat Credit can be denied to Daman unit nor Central Excise duty can be demanded from Vadodara unit once again. 2.1 It was further argued that the Appellant has already explained that considering distance between Vadodara and Daman, and given the fact that the Appellant cannot control vehicle numbers mentioned on LR by the transporters, merely because handful of vehicles shown to have transported goods from Vadodara to Daman for return of processed goods, if were found to be transporting goods elsewhere in a time-gap of a few days, cannot lead to any inevitable conclusion that goods have not been returned back from Vadodara to Daman at all. it was also argued that the committed statements of the transporters being contrary to factual and do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CESTAT AHMEDABAD to argue that records from check posts are not authentic to conclude whether goods were transported or otherwise. 2.6 He submitted that the impugned order itself admits at Para 10.6 thereof that had the Appellant opted for the procedure under Rule 4(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 by taking necessary permission, there would not be any demand. He relied upon the following decisions in support of the contention that since Daman unit had already paid duty on finished goods, it cannot be demanded from Vadodara unit at all: * THERMAX BABCOCK & WILCOX LTD. 2018 (364) E.L.T. 945 (TRI. - LB)- PARA 7.5 TO 7.16 * DHANA SINGH SYNTHETICS P. LTD. 2015 (326) E.L.T. 609 (TRI. -AHMD) * COMMISSIONER V. DHANA SINGH SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. - 2016 (337) E.L.T. A140 (S.C.) * SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD. 2014(302) ELT 564 (TRI-AHMD) - PARA 12 AND 13 * HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. 2006 (206) E.L.T. 848 (TRI. - BANG) * VANDANA DYEING P. LTD. 2014(307) ELT 528 (TRI-MUMBAI) * ESSAR STEEL LTD. V. CCE, RAIPUR - 2016 (341) E.L.T. 145 (TRI.) 2.7 He finally argued that demands under both the cases negate each other. According to him, the demands are otherwise time-barred and the Credit must be al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the duty demand stands raised on them. Admittedly, no similar duty demand is raised on M/s. Amod Steel Processors (another job worker) meaning thereby that the inputs processed at their end are not sent to customers, but appears to have been returned back to Daman unit. It is also admitted that Daman unit had paid duty at appropriate rate on the entire quantity of finished goods shown to have been sent from Daman to the eventual customers, who also received such goods. 4.2 We find that admittedly the various customers have received the processed goods and also certified to this effect and at the same time, no cogent evidence is adduced by revenue to show that such goods in fact physically travelled from Vadodara to customers premises, instead of from Daman to customer premises, as claimed by the Appellant. In any case, we find that the entire controversy can be decided on legal basis, without entering into the chequered controversy regarding return movement of goods to Daman and from Daman to eventual customers, in light of certain admitted facts. 4.3 We find merits in the legal contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that since the inputs were originally sent u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ituation arises in case where the Cenvated inputs are sent for job work and finished goods manufactured therefrom is cleared from the job work premises. It is a facility to avoid the return of the finished goods to the factory of principal manufacturer and also to save the logistic cost. Thus Rule 4(5) and Rule 4(6) have been issued under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 Rules as the conditions under which Cenvat credit can be allowed to a principal manufacturer and it is not a statutory provision to grant exemption from payment of duty to the manufacturer and in the present case, the job worker. 7.8 In the case under reference, the facts of non-payment of duty on final products by the principal manufacturer is not disputed. The goods received from the job worker were not used in the manufacture of dutiable final products but in goods on which no duty was paid. In such case when the principal manufacturer did not intend to pay duty on the final products, the job worker who is manufacturer of intermediate goods is liable to pay duty. Non-compliance of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 by the principal manufacturer has resulted into duty liability upon the job worker....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of duty of job worker. It is undisputed in the present case that the principal manufacturer was not paying duty on removal of final products and had also not opted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. Hence the liability is on the manufacturer of intermediate product, i.e. job worker in the present case. 7.15 The reliance placed upon the Circular No. 306/22/97/-CX, dated 20-3-1997 is also misplaced since the circular was with reference to the situation upon eligibility of the job worker to claim credit where no duty was paid by them. However the facts of the present case are different as it deals with the situation as to who should be liable to pay duty when the principal manufacturer is not discharging duty either on job work goods or on final products in which such job work goods are consumed. In such case the responsibility lies to the job worker who is the ultimate manufacturer of the goods to discharge the excise duty. 7.16 Revenue has placed reliance upon the Tribunal judgment in case of M/s. Facit Asia Ltd. v. CCE - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 347 (Tri.). Tribunal was seized of the question as to whether the duty paid by the job worker is available to the princ....