TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner passed order dated 22.10.2008 and on appeal, this Tribunal, by order dated 1.3.2017, remanded the matter again to the Commissioner. In pursuance of this remand order, the impugned order has been passed. 2. The facts of this case are that during a transit check on 07.10.2003, the tempo bearing registration number DL1F1629 of the assessee was intercepted and was found to contain laminated fabrics without any duty paying documents. The tempo was brought back to the assessee's factory and searched. Sample of the goods was drawn and sent to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory [CRCL] for testing. Its report dated 11.12.2003 stated that the goods were woven fabrics laminated with polypropylene, which is appropriately classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading [CETH] 903.90. A show cause notice [SCN] was issued in respect of the seized goods. As a follow-up, an SCN dated 18.08.2005 was issued to the assessee covering the period August 2000 to December 2003 and demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 87,80,513/- with interest and penalties. The proposals in this show cause notice have been decided in the impugned order. Submissions of the appellant 3. Learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LDPE, PP and HDPE). Shri Damodar Das Aggarwal, proprietor, had, in his statement, admitted to the manufacture of these fabrics. (iii) The submission of the appellant that it was entitled to the exemption available under Notification No. 214/86CE dated 25.3.1986 and Notification No. 83/94-CE dated 11.4.1994 is not correct. Both these exemptions were available where the principal who supplied the goods gives an undertaking that he would receive the goods and utilise them in the manufacture excisable goods and would pay duty on such goods. No such undertaking was produced by the appellant. (iv) The demand of duty has been calculated on the basis of the figures in the balance sheets and the figures provided by the appellant as indicated in paragraph 73.1 & 73.2 of the impugned order. (v) In view of the above, the impugned order may be upheld and both appeals may be dismissed. Findings 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. We note that this is the third round of litigation in the matter. 6. The appellant's first contention is that lamination does not amount to manufacture at all. Reliance is placed on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferent identifiable goods and relying on previous judgments, the Supreme Court held that lamination amounts to manufacture. Learned counsel relied on Shree Jee Laminates decision of this Tribunal to assert that lamination does not amount to manufacture. We find that Laminated Packings judgment of the Supreme Court was relied on by the department and was cited in Shree Jee Laminates. However, without any discussion or distinguishing Laminated Packings, it has been held in Shree Jee Laminates that lamination does not amount to manufacture. 11. We respectfully follow the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laminated Packings and hold that lamination does amount to manufacture. 12. Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the work which they had carried out as job work for others was exempted by Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 and even though the principals had not given an undertaking as per the notification, their goods should be exempted. This submission deserves to be rejected. Notifications No. 214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 and Notification No. 83/94 - CE dated 11.4.1994 provide exemption for goods manufactured on job work basis if the principa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Principal manufacturers. 15. Next is the question of the exemption available to small scale industries based on the value of the excisable goods cleared under Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000, Notification No. 8/2001-CE, Notification No. 8/2002-CE and Notification No. 8/2003-CE. According to the learned counsel, it was entitled to the benefit of the exemptions which was denied to it. We find that in paragraph 74 of the impugned order, the Commissioner denied the benefit of the exemption on the ground that the laminated HDPE fabrics cleared by the appellant would fall under Central Excise Tariff heading 3926.90 which were not covered by the exemption. 16. We find that the exemption was available to the goods indicated in the Annexures to the respective notifications. The Annexures read 'All goods specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 other than the following: ........ (ix) strips of plastics intended for weaving of fabrics or sacks, polyurethane foam and articles of polyurethane foam, falling under Chapter 39; ...' 17. All excisable goods were therefore, exempted under the SSI exemption notifications other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isable goods. Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, job-worker means a person engaged in the manufacture or production of goods on behalf of a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the said principal manufacturer or by any other person authorised by him. 19. This Rule does not include any provision for adding notional profit. The value must be determined as per Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules. The appellant further contended that it must be given cum-tax benefit. 20. We find that if the appellant had sold goods cleared by it, the sale value of such goods should, as per the established law, be considered as cum tax value. However, to the extent the appellant had cleared the goods after doing job work, there was no sale at all and in such cases, the value has to be determined as per Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules. 21. The assessee further contended that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in this case. We do not find this contention correct. The appellant was aware that it was clearing goods manufactured on job-work and if it assumed the availability of the benefit of an exemption notification, it was for it ....