TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In absence of Rule 7AA of CER 1944, which fastened the liability of Central Excise duty on ready-made garments on the principal, the liability for payment of duty cannot be shifted from the job worker to the appellant. - There is no dispute that the appellants are not undertaking any activity in the premises. – In the absence of specific provision, similar Rule 7AA of CER 1944, quoted by the Commissioner in his order in support of his decision in Rule book, the order has no basis for confirmation of demand against the appellant and accordingly has to be set aside - E/229/2008 - A/1184/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 4-6-2009 - S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 9-7-04 with interest as applicable. He has also imposed penalty equal amount of duty as penalty. The appellants are in appeal against this order. 4. Shri P.M. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Commissioner has discussed the manufacture and marketability issues and has held that the appellants are manufacturing Punjabi ladies suits and the same are marketable and therefore classifiable as garment and has demanded duty. 5. He submitted that there is no manufacture involved in the entire activity. The goods were sold as un-stitched Punjabi lady suits. Further, he submits that the process does not amount to manufacture. What is being sold is only the set of three items - first item is Kurta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are ready-made garments, the appellants would still not be liable. It is the job workers who have manufactured the goods and since no procedure under Notification No. 214/86 has been followed, and no undertaking has been filed by the appellants, the duty liability falls on the job worker and therefore no demand can be confirmed against the appellant. He also submits that the Commissioner's observations that as per Rule 7AA, which are inserted in CER 1944 w.e.f. 1-5-01, which provides that in case where readymade garments are manufactured by job workers, the principal is liable for payment of duty is not correct. During the relevant period, Rule 7AA was not in force since when CER 2001 was introduced w.e.f. 1-7-01, the provisions similar to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich fastened the liability of Central Excise duty on ready-made garments on the principal, the liability for payment of duty cannot be shifted from the job worker to the appellant. It is also claimed by the appellant that in reality, it is not the job worker who is doing this work but a transaction on principal to principal basis. Even assuming that this work was got done through only by job worker, even in such case, the appellants are not liable in the absence of any procedure prescribed in CER 1944 having been followed or claimed to have been followed or the benefit of such procedure claimed. Learned SDR could not show any provision in Central Excise law which shifts the burden of payment of duty on items like this on the person who obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
