2001 (3) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....worker manufacturers on account of G.T.C. 2.When the appeals came up for arguments today, ld. Counsel, representing the appellants, submitted that they were withdrawing Appeal No. E/2752/86-A, filed by M/s. Suvarna Filter & Tobacco Co. On the basis of this submission, we dismiss the Appeal No. E/2752/86-A as not pressed without going into the issues involved. 3.With regard to other appeals, ld. Counsel submitted that it is settled law that job workers are manufacturers and they have the liability to pay duty in respect of goods manufactured by them. He also submitted that on this ground in identical set of facts relating to production of ITC brand cigarettes by the job workers of ITC, this Tribunal held that there was no duty liabilit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nds have been raised invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act alleging that there was suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty by the manufacturers. Ld. Counsel contended that in the facts of these cases, there was no evidence on record that the job workers were party to any fraud. Therefore, the extended period of duty demand could not be raised against them. Ld. Counsel, further, submitted that since duty demands are not maintainable, no penalties could also be imposed on any of the parties, as penalties are in relation to evasion of duty of excise. In this connection, ld. Counsel referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. H.M.M. Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). 4.As against t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of Ujagar Prints Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.). That decision of the Supreme Court was followed by the Tribunal in identical set of facts relating to manufacture of ITC brand cigarettes [I.T.C. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 151]. In this view of the matter, the duty demand raised against G.T.C. in the impugned adjudication order in relating to the goods manufactured by the job workers, cannot be sustained. 6.With regard to the contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the revenue based on this Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 161-162/97-D, dated 3-3-1997, we find that that order related to manufacture of cigarettes by G.T.C. themselves. The findings, in that order, do not hav....