Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 101 - SC - Central ExciseJob work - Computation of Aggregate turnover of the goods - Rectification of mistake - Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - clearance of cotton fabrics and cotton made-ups without payment of any duty - case of appellant is that the job workers were the manufacturers and that no liability could be fixed on the traders - Circular dated 30.10.2003 - threshold limit of clearances for each job-worker - whether the Appellants’ liability is only in respect of the clearance of that job worker whose clearance was greater than the limit of ₹ 25 lakhs or in respect of the entire aggregate value of clearances? Held that:- The Exemption Notification dated 30.04.2003 exempts “first clearances for home consumption, upto an aggregate value not exceeding twenty lakh rupees”. The emphasis is on the aggregate value and what is exempted is, “upto an aggregate value”. The conditions stipulated in Para 2 of said Exemption Notification, specially clauses (i) and (ii) again emphasize the applicability in respect of “aggregate value of clearances for home consumption and not separately regarding individual clearances”. The extent of limits was raised by subsequent Notification dated 17.05.2003. 3 Introduced on 25.03.2003 - The Exemption Notification does not put the matter at individual clearances of job workers and what is to be considered is an aggregate value of the clearances. It is well settled that if a legal fiction is introduced that legal fiction must be taken to the logical end. If the contention of the Appellant is accepted, a dealer may get the goods referred to in Rule 12B manufactured from several job workers to ensure that the value of the clearances from each job worker is less than the limit prescribed for individual clearances. In such a case the emphasis in the Rule regarding aggregate clearances would be rendered meaningless. The assessment made by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal was, therefore, correct - Consequently, it was not the individual clearance of one single job worker alone exceeding the limit of ₹ 25 lakhs but the aggregate of all clearances made by the Appellant, was liable to duty. Appeal dismissed.
|