Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 316 - CESTAT NEW DELHISSI Exemption - clubbing the clearances of job worker with that of the appellant - period April, 2008 to August, 2009 - benefit of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - HELD THAT:- The similar issue has been decided in favour of the appellant under the similar facts and circumstances in the case of M/s.Mewar Hi-Tech Engg. Ltd.[2019 (8) TMI 1363 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein this Tribunal held that the taxable event for the central excise duty is the manufacture of excisable goods, and the moment, there is transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes, ‘manufacture’ takes place and liability to duty is attracted. Thus, the sale or the ownership of the end product is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of taxable event under the scheme of the Central Excise Act, read with the Rules. Further, the job worker is not liable to pay duty only in the circumstances under the erstwhile Rule 57(F) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, or according to the present Rule 4 (5)(a) of CCR, 2004 read with the relevant Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, wherein the principal manufacturer gives an undertaking to the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority of the job worker to pay the duty. In the present case, admittedly, no such procedure was undertaken. Hence, under the scheme of the Act, ipso facto the duty liability is on the job worker - the appellant is not liable to pay any central excise duty for the goods got manufactured and cleared from the job worker’s premises. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant has maintained proper books of accounts’ register and vouchers of their transactions and has also disclosed such transactions before other Tax Authorities, as the appellant was not liable to pay central excise duty being an SSI Unit, not requiring registration under the Central Excise Provisions - the demand for the extended period of limitation is also not maintainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|