TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (7) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated the facts are that all the four Appellants manufactured untrimmed sheets/circles of copper, copper alloys on job work basis which were removed by them without payment of excise duty. The demand for duty of excise was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). However, on appeal the Appellate Tribunal, in the case of Aggarwal Rolling Mills v. CCE, New Delhi - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 615 (T), remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration in the light of the observations made and the law. 2.2 The Assistant Commissioner re-adjudicated the matters and confirmed the demand of duty against all the Appellants, holding that the condition specified under Notification No. 214/86 has not been compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the same subject to the fulfilment of the conditions and the procedure prescribed therein. The duty liability, if any, which may arise in the case of non fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in para 2 would lie on the supplier(s) of the raw material or semi-finished goods as the responsibility has been, explicitly cast on him as a principal manufacturer. The ld. DR is correct in pointing out that in normal course the responsibility under Excise Law is on the manufacturer (incl. Job workers), but once the Govt. has chosen to depart from this principle explicitly and made provisions to take care of the resultant situation by making a specific provision in the Notification No. 214/86, it is not the case law cited by the ld. DR but the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35) RLT 453, that untrimmed cover sheets are not liable to duty as no evidence of their marketability had been produced by the Department. The ld. Counsel, therefore, contended that the products manufactured by the Appellants are not liable to excise duty, being not marketable. Finally, the ld. Advocate referred to the clarification given by the Principal Collector wherein it was clarified that product job rolled under Rule 57F(3), Notification No. 214/86 are not to be charged to excise duty in the hands of Job worker provided proper procedure is adopted as provided in the Central Excise Rules/relevant Notification. He mentioned that the clarification given by the Department is binding on the Central Excise Officers and reliance was placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irement of rule 57F(2) have also to be complied by them and the Appellants were not keeping any records as well as the prescribed register regarding the minutes of the meeting with the Principal Collector, relied upon by the ld. Advocate for the Appellate. The ld. DR submitted that it was clearly mentioned in the clarification that the procedure prescribed under the Rules or the Notification has to be followed and as such the Adjudicating Authority has not in any way done anything contrary to the clarification; that, further, the clarification does not contain any new things as it only repeats what is mentioned in Notification No. 214/86. 4. In reply the ld. Advocate submitted that the challan, for sending the goods under Rule 57F(2) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the light of the observations made by them and the law. The Adjudicating Authority has re-adjudicated the matter following observations of made by the Tribunal in the Remand Order and in accordance with law. It has been specifically mentioned by the Adjudicating authorities that the benefit of the Notification No. 1/93 was not available to the appellants as they had crossed the value of clearances of Rs. 75 lakhs up to 28-2-1994 and as such the benefit of exemption was not available for the period of March 94. The Adjudicating Authority has given, further, findings that exemption under Notification 1/93 was not available for the financial year 1994-95 as the aggregate value of clearance, has crossed Rs. 200 lakhs limit specified in the Not....