Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1143 - AT - Central ExciseGovt. of India undertaking - job-work - The case of the department is that as per the Rule 12B in CER, 2002 w.e.f 1-4-2003 the appellant being raw material supplier is required to pay duty on the goods manufactured on job work basis by independent job worker on behalf of the appellant - Held that: - as regard the goods falling under Chapter 62 there was statutory provisions u/r 4 of CER, 2001 that in case of job work principle raw material supplier is required to pay the duty. This provision was effected from 1-3-2001, Accordingly demand pertains to the period October, 2002 to March, 2003 on the goods of chapter 62 is correct and recoverable - as regard the penalty, the appellant being government of India undertaking and issue involved being interpretation of the law in respect of special provisions only in respect of textile articles, we do not find any malafide on the part of the appellant, we therefore set aside penalty imposed u/s 11AC corresponding to the demand of ₹ 67,616/- As regard the demand in respect of goods of Chapter 63 for the period October, 1999 to March, 2003, the lower authority was of the view that appellant had control over the job worker, hence the demand is recoverable from the appellant - is demand justified? - Held that: - arrangement of job work is always the same as when the job worker carry out the job work the principle supplier of raw material is always concern about brand name, quality of the goods and timely supply but this facts are not sufficient to show that the appellant is controlling the job worker. Therefore reason for demanding the duty from the appellant given by the lower authorities is absolutely incorrect and without authority of law. - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|