2018 (6) TMI 574 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - sale from depot - It appeared to Revenue that M/s Prajapati Chemicals & Allied Ltd. & M/s Orient Micro Abrasives Ltd. should pay duty on goods manufactured by Job Workers on the price at which M/s Kanoria Chemical & Industries was selling the goods from their own depots to the independent buyers - Held that - The issue is no more res-integra in view of the order passed by Single Member Bench of this Tribunal in appellants own case, 2017 (11) TMI 1503 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD wherein it was held by relying on the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints & Others Versus Union of India & Others 1988 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has held that the manufacturer is liable to pay duty and ownership of the goods is not deciding criteria for liability of Central Excise duty. In the present case the liability to pay duty was on M/s Prajapati Chemicals & Allied Ltd. & M/s Orient Micro Abrasives Ltd. & that M/s Kanoria Chemical & Industries, who was not the manufacturer of the goods did not have liability to pay any Central Excise duty - SCN not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Liability of duty payment by job workers for goods manufactured on behalf of principal manufacturer.
- Interpretation of liability under Central Excise Act, 1944 for job work transactions.
- Application of previous tribunal decisions and Supreme Court rulings in determining duty liability.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Allahabad pertains to three appeals arising from a common impugned Order-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad. The key issue in all the appeals was the liability of duty payment by job workers, namely M/s Prajapati Chemicals & Allied Ltd. & M/s Orient Micro Abrasives Ltd., for goods manufactured on behalf of M/s Kanoria Chemicals & Industries. The duty was paid based on job work charges received, and the Revenue contended that duty should be paid by the job workers on the price at which the principal manufacturer sold the goods. A joint Show Cause Notice was issued, demanding a differential duty amount and imposing penalties on the job workers. The impugned Order-in-Original confirmed the demand and penalties, leading to the present appeals.

During the hearing, the appellants' counsel relied on a previous Final Order of the Tribunal and a Supreme Court ruling to argue that the liability to pay duty rests with the manufacturer, not based on ownership of goods. The Tribunal found that M/s Prajapati Chemicals & Allied Ltd. & M/s Orient Micro Abrasives Ltd. were considered manufacturers, and therefore, the duty payment liability could not be shifted to M/s Kanoria Chemicals & Industries. Citing the previous decision, the Tribunal concluded that the Show Cause Notice was not sustainable, setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original and allowing all three appeals. The judgment underscores the importance of correctly attributing duty liability in job work transactions under the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on established legal principles and precedents.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal intricacies involved in determining duty payment obligations in job work scenarios, emphasizing the significance of precedent and statutory interpretation in resolving such disputes.