TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion No. 14/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 as amended and/or under corresponding Sl. Nos. of successor notification namely, 15/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 and/or 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996 and/or 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997. Exemption conferred by Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 was availed in respect of the Plastic Tanks. 3.The Appellant had filed the declarations with the Divisional authority, inter alia, claiming exemption under the aforesaid Notification for the two final products. 4.The main raw-material used by the Appellant for the manufacture of their final products is HDPE/LDPE granules, which was being procured by them on payment of duty from M/s. IPCL and/or their authorised distributors. These granules were subjected to the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. as their final products milk cans and tanks were attracting 'Nil' rate of duty. (iii) that the appellants had supplied the pulverising machines to the said job workers for their use free of cost and electricity and maintenance cost was also borne by the appellant in respect of the said job workers. Therefore, job workers were dummies and appellants is the manufacturer. 4.1The impugned order confirmed the entire alleged demand of duty and imposed an equivalent amount of penalty on the Appellant under Section 11 AC and interest under Section 11AB of the Act. It also ordered confiscation of land, building etc. under Rule 173Q(2) with an option to redeem the same on fine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... At worst this can be treated as additional consideration for the purpose of the determination of the assessable value of the subject goods. 5.4The appellants reliance on the decision in : (i) Collector v. M.M. Khambhatwala - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.); (ii) Delhi Paper Products v. CCE, New Delhi - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 661 (Tribunal); (iii) Techma Engineering Enterprise v. CCE - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 460 (Tribunal); (iv) Fusion Polymers Ltd. v. CCE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 665 (Tribunal); is well founded to hold the job worker is a manufacturer and they are not dummy. 5.5Even if it is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. would be available to the appellant. Further, the job workers have not claimed benefit of small scale notification to avoid duty payment. Thus, the averment that job workers are dummy is not the cause for the demand. Sole cause for the demand is that since final product is exempt, Notification No. 214/86 is not available to pulverised powder. Therefore there is no suppression by the appellant, since the fact final products tanks and cans are wholly exempt is a fact known to the department. Similarly, the department also knew that on pulverised powder job workers are availing Notification No. 214/86. It is clear case of change of interpretation/opinion by the department on same sets of facts.....