9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter further processing, some of the intermediate goods were received back in their factory which were used for manufacturing exempted footwear. The remaining inter mediate goods were used by the job-workers for manufacturing exempted footwear which have been cleared from the premises of the job-workers directly. The period for which the impugned demand has been raised against the Appellants is from May, 1999 to 15-9-2002. Shri Khaitan clarifies that some intermediates were also used by the appellants and the job-workers for manufacturing dutiable footwear, but there is no demand in respect of such intermediates in the present proceeding. 3. Shri Khaitan submits that the Department, on the one hand, alleges that the Appellants were sendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CCE - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 252 (Tri.- Kolkata) and pleads that the present case may also be similarly decided setting aside the demand and penalty. 5. He also argues on behalf of the Appellants that the intermediate goods in question are unfinished goods and these were neither marketed nor marketable and hence there can be no duty liability on such intermediate goods. Shri Khaitan further submits that major part of the demand amounting to about Rs. 1.98 crores relates to intermediate goods used in the premises of the job-workers for manufacturing exempted footwear and such intermediates are in any case exempt under Notification No. 10/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. 6. Shri J.A. Khan, learned Departmental Representative (SDR) appearing on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter that they were working under Notification No. 214/86, whereas in the present case there are two letters mentioned above. 7. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records and the cited decisions, we find that there is no allegation in the show cause notice to the effect that the Appellants were the actual manufacturers of the intermediate goods. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate, the Appellants had no opportunity to defend themselves against such allegations. Moreover, we find that the Department s stand that the Appellants were the real manufacturers is contrary to the claim made that they were working under Notification No. 214/86 inasmuch as Notification No. 214/86 pre-supposes that the job-worke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the question of their marketability. As regards the demand against the Appellants are concerned, we follow the ratio of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal cited above in the case of Hindusthan Engineering Industries Ltd. and in the Appellants own case and hold that the Appellants have no liability under Notification No. 214/86, as they have not given any undertaking to discharge the duty liability on behalf of the job-workers and that since they are not the manufacturers for the intermediate goods, the duty liability on the same cannot be latched on to them. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty on the Appellants cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed. (Pronounced and dictated i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
