TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant. The appeals at Sl. Nos. 6 to 12 are filed by the appellant aggrieved by the Orders-in-Appeal No. CAL-EXCUS-000-APP-175 to 181/2017-CE dated 15.09.2017 of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Orders-in-Original of the adjudicating authority confirming the demands along with interest and imposition of penalty have been upheld. Further the appeals at Sl. Nos. 13 to 15 are filed by the appellant aggrieved by the Orders-in-Appeal No. CAL-EXCUS-000-APP199 to 200/2022 dated 30.05.2021 and CAL-EXCUS-000-APP-155/2023 dated 17.03.2023 of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Orders-in-Original of the adjudicating authority confirming the demands along with the interest and imposition of penalty have been upheld. The details of the appeals are as under: Sl. No. Appeal No. O-I-A. No. & Date Amounts involved( Duty, Interest and penalty) SCN No. & Date Period of Dispute 1 E/20491/2015 186 to 190/2014-CE dated 10.12.2014 Rs. 3,38,187/- + equal Penalty + interest u/s/ 11AB 01/2008 dt. 05.09.2008 August 2007 to October 2007 2 E/20492/2015 186 to 190/2014-CE dated 10.12.2014 Rs. 4,43,414/- + equal penalty + interest u/s 11AB 04/2008 dt. 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2016 to 30.06.2017 2. The brief facts are the appellant, M/s. Rubco Haut Woods Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of 'Finger Jointed Edge Glued Panels' (FJEGP) and 'laminated wooden beams and boards' falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 4407 1090 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are subjected to 'nil' rate of duty. Show-cause notices were issued alleging that central excise duty has not been paid on the wooden furniture manufactured by the job-workers and cleared from the appellant's depots under their brand name 'Rubco'. It is alleged in the show-cause notice that; cutting of FJEGP panels, boards and laminated beams to specific sizes is an activity 'incidental' and 'ancillary' to the manufacture of furniture and therefore what is sent to the job worker is only semi-finished goods for further processing; M/s. Pattiam Social Service Society, which does the lacquering and polishing is not a job-worker but only a hired labourer of the assessee; the activity undertaken by the assessee in relation to the manufacture of wooden furniture prior to and after August 2007 do not differ mainly because the finishin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 01.03.2003 the exemption contained in the said Notification is applicable to goods bearing the trade name or brand name of another person, if the said goods are manufactured by unit situated in a rural area. Since, M/s. Pattiam Social Service Society is situated in a rural area, they are eligible for the said Notification even for the goods cleared under the brand name of Rubco" and accordingly, the original authority dropped all the proceedings. On appeal by the department against the orders of the adjudicating authority the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Departmental appeal holding the basic material FJEGP was manufactured by the appellant and then supplied to the 9(nine) job workers to assemble the furniture and therefore, M/s. Rubco Haut Woods the appellant is liable to pay duty on the items sold against the entry 'SIs ancillary' and upheld the proceedings initiated in the showcause notices and appeals filed by Department were allowed. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-Appeals of the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant filed the appeals at Sl.Nos. 1 to 5 of the table at para 1, supra. Thereafter periodical show cause notices were issued for the subsequent periods a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as hired labour. 7. In this regard the appellant relied on the following case laws; a) In Motor Industries Company Ltd. Vs. CCE,-1999 (111) E.L.T. 163 and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE-2005 (188) ELT 331, it was held: "It is obvious from the facts of the instant case that the job worker's role was much more than to receive wages for the labour involved in the manufacture of lead anodes. They employed their own capital goods and their own work force to manufacture the product. The fact that the process was carried out at a site allotted by the appellants or that the raw materials for the process were supplied by them did not detract from the job worker's status as manufacturer" b) In Pennar Industries Vs. CCE-2005(186) ELT 58A, the Tribunal held that "a hired labourer is a person who has no independent entity with separate established unit. He is under total control of the employer and works as a labourer on wages. The present position is not that of the sub-contractor working on wages although the assessee may be paying only job charges. Merely because job charges of minimal amount is paid that by itself is no ground to hold the job worker as a hired labo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was done earlier, but giving the job to other entities, it would not make those entities hired labour of the Appellant. The societies have been in existence for quite some time, and after they put up a lacquering unit with the permission of the Department of Industries, they approached the Appellant for giving them work of polishing and lacquering of furniture; the furniture manufacturers have all entered into agreements with the polishing societies, and it is the responsibility of the job worker to get the furniture polished; the fact that the Appellant earlier did the polishing and lacquering themselves, but has taken a business decision not to do so anymore does not in any way imply that polishers are hired labour, or that 'Rubco' is the manufacturer of the furniture. In fact, the societies have entered into contracts with the job workers to do the polishing and there is no privity of contract between them and the Appellant; the societies concerned are not hired labour of the Appellant, but genuine social service societies which have obtained licence from the Industries department for doing lacquering work; the societies are all situated in a rural area, and as such, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and Rule 11(4) stipulates that only one copy of invoice book shall be in use except where special permission is obtained; what was sold from their branch are only trading goods and are not goods manufactured by the Appellant and as such, the provisions of Rule 11(4) will not apply; The details of production and removal of the furniture is not contained in the Form ER-1 return, since they are not manufactured by the Appellant, but only by the job worker; there is no column in the Form to give details there is no contravention of Rule 12; there was no suppression of facts or any activity with intent to evade payment of duty, and as such penalty u/s 11AC is not warranted. 10. The learned counsel for the Appellant during the hearing reiterated the submissions made in the appeal memorandum and made further submissions with regard to the relevant case laws. 11. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned orders of Commissioner (Appeals). 12. Heard both sides and perused the records. 13. The issue involved in this case is whether the 'Finger Jointed Edge Glued Panel (FJEGP) boards' and 'laminated beams' c....