Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 829 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - job-work - manufacture of Plastic jerry can and pet bottles - case of the department is that the principal manufacturer are using the job worker manufactured goods in the manufacture of exempted goods, therefore, the job worker being a manufacturer are required to pay excise duty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the case of THERMAX BABCOCK AND WILCOX LTD., THERMAX LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I [2017 (12) TMI 266 - CESTAT MUMBAI], Division Bench of Mumbai Tribunal referred the matter to Larger Bench and then only the Larger Bench has held that in case of job worker when the procedure under Notification No. 214/86- CE is not followed and the principal manufacturer is not discharging the excise duty on their final product, job worker is required to pay excise duty. Therefore the appellants have correctly entertained the bonafide belief that on the basis of various judgments that excise duty was payable by the principal supplier of the raw material. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is settled law in various judgments in the case of MARSHA PHARMA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA [2009 (6) TMI 818 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] which was upheld by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in COMMISSIONER - CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VADODARA - I VERSUS MARSHA PHARMA PVT LTD [2010 (9) TMI 1125 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and also in case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CUS. & ST., VAPI VERSUS CHARAK PHARMA P. LTD. [2012 (11) TMI 475 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that the demand for the extended period of limitation was not permissible when the issue was referred to Larger Bench of Tribunal. The appeals related to the demand of extended period are allowed and in respect of demand for the normal period it is remanded to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand It is made clear that since we have held that there was no malafide on the part of the appellants, no penalty is imposable on all the appellants in respect of any duty liability arise after re-quantification. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|