TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly. That vide Finance Bill, 1994 introduced on 28-2-1994 the notification no. 178/88, dated 13-5-1988 was withdrawn and the benefit of notification no. 1/93 to the products falling under heading 7409.00 was extended, granting exemption upto Rs. 30 lakhs. Therefore, as advised by the local staff in a meeting held on 15-3-1994, the Registration Certificates were surrendered and the appellants became entitled to an exemption upto Rs. 30 Lakhs in the month of March, 1994 and again in the next year April, 1994 to March, 1995. That this position was even confirmed by the Principal Collector vide his C. No. IV(16)414/CE/94/7381A, dated 3-10-1994 relevant extracts from which are reproduced below : - Point No. 3: What is the procedure of getting the brass gullies converted into untrimmed circles on job basis from hot rollers by the manufacturers of trimmed circles/cold rolled sheets not facility of hot rolling in their units when their sales is below Rs. 30 Lacs ? Clarification : Such manufacturers of trimmed brass circles/cold rolled sheets can get their billets/gullies hot rolled into untrimmed circles/sheets on job work basis as per provision of notification nos. 83/94 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etable products but are merely used for production of the final products namely, the trimmed circles or cold rolled sheets. He also emphasised that the Commissioner has erred in holding that the appellants were engaged in hot rolling of the products which were received under the then Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on proper serial numbered challans duly authenticated by the Central Excise officers because the appellants were not required to follow any procedure under Rule 57A and 57F(2) or even under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 since they were only job workers and hence it was for the suppliers of the materials to file the necessary documents before the Central Excise officers. Ld. Counsel further stated that Ld. Commissioner s (Appeals) observations regarding Addl. Commissioner s view with reference to Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is also misplaced. It is a settled law that it was an option of the appellants either to claim modvat and work under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. or under para a(i) or para a(ii) of para 1 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. It was their grievance that the authorities below have fixed liability, if any, on the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r exemption under Notification No. 214/86 and she has correctly held that duty liability was in respect of final product manufactured by them and not in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellants. 8. Ld. DR cited case law in support of the department s contention that (a) the demand of duty could be made only from the manufacturer (b) granting of exemption depends upon various conditions precedents as well as procedure which is required to be followed, if such exemption is sought (c) simultaneous availment of modvat credit and SSI exemption on the same goods is not permissible and (d) Doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable to taxation matters; And in this respect referred to : - (i) Ram Krishan Aggarwal v. Collector - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 35 (Cal.) (ii) Kalsi Tyres (Chandigarh) v. CCE - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 631 (Tribunal) (iii) Pfizer Ltd. v. UOI and Others - 1996 (65) ECR 155 (Bom.) (iv) Abilash Rubber Products v. CCE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 168 (Tribunal) (v) Faridabad Tools (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 (Tribunal) (vi) Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 (S.C.) (vii) Kasinka Trading v. UOI and Others - AIR 1995 (SC) 874. 9. Ld. Counsel in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of mention of the item in the tariff, there is an initial presumption in favour of it being excisable product but it is a rebuttable presumption and therefore, it was for the party claiming it to be non-excisable, in spite of its mention in the tariff, to discharge its burden. 14. Further, even otherwise, the untrimmed circles could be either manufactured on job work or purchased and utilised for the manufacture of trimmed circles and subsequently in the manufacture of utensils etc. The notifications cited and relied upon by both the sides in favour of their respective arguments themselves provide exemption to excisable goods only (in fact there is no need for issuing an exemption notification for an item which is not excisable). The appellants have themselves accepted that they were claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 178/88 till it was in force and clearing untrimmed circles on payment of duty accordingly. The case law cited by the ld. Counsel therefore, does not advance their cause in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Ld. Counsel is, correct in pointing out that Notification No. 178/88 was rescinded by Notification No. 64/94, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fications. Thus e.g. some notifications themselves indicate that benefit thereof shall not be available if the assessee has already availed of the benefit under Rule 56A and 57A (as for example Notification No. 134/94). Since there is no such stipulation in the Notification 214/86 the benefit thereof could not be denied to a person enjoying SSI benefit. 21. It is also significant that Notification 1/93 is an SSI notification which specifically includes certain headings and excludes others. Therefore, generalisation is not possible. In the circumstances, the benefit under Notification 214/86 could not be denied to the appellants from the period it came into force and they had opted for the same subject to the fulfilment of conditions and the procedure prescribed therein. The duty liability, if any, which may arise in case of non-fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in para 2 would lie on the supplier(s) of the raw material or semi-finished goods as the responsibility has been explicitly cast on him as a principal manufacturer. 22. Ld. DR is correct in pointing out that in normal course, the responsibility under Excise Law is on the manufacturer (incl. job workers) but once th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
