AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... excise duty; as the principals M/s ITL/ IFL did not file the necessary declaration under Notification No.214/86, benefit of job-work is also not applicable to the appellants/ principals. A show cause notice dated 24.02.2010 was issued to the appellants demanding central excise duty of Rs.1,13,81,827/-, for the period, 2004-2009, along with interest and penalty. The proceedings culminated with the issue of the impugned order dated 07.02.2011 wherein the amount of duty demanded was confirmed with equal penalty. 2. Shri Naveen Bindal, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an order in favour of the Revenue vide OIA dated 04.05.2012, for the period 01.10.2009 to 31.08.2010; learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the incomplete crank shaft is exempt by Entry No.2 of Notification No.06/2006 dated 01.03.2006; the use of the incomplete crank shaft is within the factory of production as per the meaning assigned to it by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Lohia Sheet Products - 2008 (224) ELT 349 (SC) which was followed in 2011 (7) TMI 270 (Tri. Del.). He further submits that the incomplete shaft is not marketable unless i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ft for M/s Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., Alwar (TAFE), M/s Swaraj Engine Ltd., Mohali (Swaraj), M/s International Tractor Hoshiarpur (ITL), M/s Ind-Farm Industries Ltd., Baddi (IFI) on job work basis; they are also manufacturing and selling crank shafts for tractor and trucks in replacement market on payment of central excise duty for which they are availing Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services; the statement has been corroborated by Shri M.S. Chera, Managing Director, of the Appellant. He relies on Bharat Enterprises (2002 (139) ELT 321 (CEGAT); Raunaq International Ltd 2004 (163) ELT 321 (Tri. Kolkata) and Metal Forgings Pvt Ltd 1987 (32) ELT 15 (Del.) upheld in 1998 (102) ELT A224 (S.C) 5. Learned Authorised Representative submits further that the Appellant's claim, of exemption under Notification No 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, is not acceptable; from the words 'used in the factory of manufacture' used in the Notification No. 6/2006, it is evident that only those parts are exempt from duty which are manufactured and captively consumed in the manufacture of Tractors of heating 87.01. He submits that reliance on Lohia Sheet Products Vs. Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6, the appellant is liable to discharge duty on the goods manufactured in their factory at the time of removal of goods. 7. Learned Authorised Representative submits, on the admissibility of Cenvat credit on the goods received for processing, that the inputs (forged crank shafts) were received by the appellant, from M/s ITL & IFI, on job-work challan, for doing job-work only; the question of payment of duty on these inputs by M/s ITL & ITF does not arise and consequently, the question of taking of credit by the appellant also do not arise; the appellant has not produced any evidence showing that they have maintained proper records as per Rule 9(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; the Appellant failed to discharge the onus regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit. 8. As regards, the invocation of extended period and imposition of penalties, Learned Authorised Representative submits that the appellant had neither disclosed the facts in their periodical ER-1 returns nor brought these facts to the notice of the Department; these facts came to the notice of the department only during the course of Audit; the appellants are manufacturing machined crank shaf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise duty on the job-work undertaken by them till 1997; Shri Rajesh Kumar Rana, General Manager of the appellants stated in his statement dated 25.09.2009 that in case of supplies to IFI, they cleared the crank shafts on job-work on payment of central excise duty up to 19.09.2007; he also stated that they are also manufacturing and selling crank shafts for tractors and trucks in replacement market. 10. On going through the records of the case and rival submissions, we find that the appellants as well as the revenue were taking different stand in respect of different manufacturers in different periods. The appellants were paying central excise duty on the crank shafts manufactured or job-worked by them till 1997; in case of IFI, out of the disputed supplies to TFL and IFI, they were paying duty on clearances up to 19.09.2007; Shri Rajesh Kumar Rana, General Manager of the appellants stated that they are also clearing some of the shafts in the replacement market. These facts are not denied by the appellant or the learned Counsel for the appellants. Therefore, there are reasons for the Revenue to believe that the process undertaken by the appellants on the crank shafts is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntrary decision based on independent evidence and on its own merit as per legal development Therefore, it has to be concluded that it is not open for the Revenue to change the practice of assessment for the previous period, after accepting the very same assesses argument for the subsequent period. 12. We find that the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that even if the crank shafts manufactured by them are dutiable, benefit of Notification No.214/86 may be granted to them as they have received the crank shafts for job-work, from the principal manufacturers, under the cover of job-work challan. Absence of a declaration/ undertaking by the principal manufacturer is a mere procedural infraction. We find that the appellants have been following the Notification No.214/86 in respect of other manufacturers like TAFE. They are well aware of the procedure to be adopted under Notification No.214/86 in respect of principal manufacturers. We find that giving the declaration and/ or the undertaking by the principal manufacturer is not an empty formality. It binds the principal manufacturer to pay the duties applicable, if any. We find that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the....