2024 (1) TMI 247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt company are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of armoured wires/ armoured strips. They were registered with the Central Excise Department and were paying Central Excise Duty. Apart from manufacturing aforesaid final product, the appellant also used to undertake job work activities for which they used to receive wires from other principal manufacturers. On the said goods the appellant used to perform job work of carrying out the process of galvanizing. After galvanizing with zinc, the said MS- wires were returned back under Annexure VI challan respectively by the appellant to the said principal manufacturers. The officers of the central excise department visited the factory of the appellant and the panchnama dated 02.03.2007 was re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on are believed to be true the principal manufacturers who has sent MS wires for carrying out the process of galvanizing on job work basis is the real manufacturer for the purpose of central excise duty liability. Demand on galvanized wire cannot be made on the appellant herein who is just a job worker. 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the appellant with reference to the Miscellaneous Application which is for additional ground submits that the process of galvanizing on MS wires does not amount to manufacture, therefore, for this reason also the demand on the job worker, on the present appellant does not sustain. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- Balaji Wires Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the department's entire case of alleged clandestine removal of goods is on the basis of panchnama and statements of various persons. The appellants have strongly objected to the manner of statement recorded. In such case the Adjudicating Authority was supposed to allow the cross- examination which is mandated under Section 9D of Central Excise Act,1944 which is reproduced below:- "9D. Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances.- (1) A statement made and signed by a person before any Central Excise Officer of a gazetted rank during the course of any inquiry or proceeding under this Act....