TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls etc. The fully packed ready for marketing garments are brought to the godown premises of the appellants from where the goods are dispatched to various customers. The garments traded by the appellants are classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 6201.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and prior to 1-3-2001, the tariff rate on the goods was Nil by the Finance Bill, of 2001. This rate was amended to 16% ad valorem. 2. Consequent to the Finance Bill effective from 1-3-2001, Officers of Central Excise visited the godown of these traders in the Bombay Market. They undertook a detailed inventory of the finished ready to market garments lying there. These garments were found to be liable for duty by the officers, since they were bearing a registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturer by virtue of above Rule as the goods were cleared finally from the premises of the assessee. (b) The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. [1996 (83) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] as relied upon by the appellants was distinguishable since in that case the Court was dealing with the goods manufactured prior to introduction of relevant tariff entry. In the present case ready-made garment falling under Chapter 62 and as per the assessee s own argument were leviable to NIL rate of duty as on 28-2-2001. The ready-made garments being always excisable, therefore the change made by the Finance Bill, 2001 was only to raise the duty on ready-made garments falling under chapter 62 from NIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal of the garments fully manufactured from their factory on valuation arrived at of all costs up to the factory gate as per the formula classified by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints case (Supra). This liability for levy and discharge of the same under the Central Excise Act cannot be shifted to the Trader i.e. the appellant on removals prior to 1-3-2001 from Job Worker s premises. (b) There is no material that removals have not been effected by the Job Workers prior to 00.00 hours of 1-3-2001. The garments found in stock in appellant s godown are appropriate NIL duty paid stocks. No further duty can now be determined on such garments. (c) When a Trader, the appellant herein is not a manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced or manufactured, or from a warehouse, unless otherwise provided : Provided that the goods falling under Chapter 62 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) produced or manufactured by a job worker may be removed without payment of duty leviable thereon and the duty of excise leviable on such goods shall be paid by the person referred to in sub-rule (3), as if such goods have been produced or manufactured by him, on the date of removal of such goods from his premises registered under rule 9 : Explanation - It is hereby clarified that where such person has authorised the job worker to pay the duty leviable on such goods under sub-rule (3), such duty shall be paid by the job worker on the date of removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers were heard on 12-1-2004 and the orders prepared and referred to learned Member (Judicial) for consideration on 20-1-2004. File along with the proposed order has been received back today. From the order enclosed at page 6, it appears that there is a difference of opinion and the question of the difference has not been framed by the learned Member (Judicial). The same may kindly be framed and send at an early date. Sd/- (S.S. Sekhon) Member (T) 1-3-2004 10. [Order per : Krishna Kumar, Member (J)]. - File received on 8-4-2004 on my return from leave. As desired the following question is formulated for reference to Third Member by the Hon ble President :- Whether in view of the facts and circumstance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods, falling under Chapter 62 .........., produced or manufactured on his account on job work, shall pay the duty leviable on such goods, at such time .... Proviso to sub-rule (3) provides that such person may authorise the job worker to pay the duty leviable on such goods on his behalf. From the language of the above Rule under which duty liability has been fastened upon the appellants in the present case, it is seen that excise duty on goods falling under Chapter 62 is payable by the person who gets the goods produced or manufactured on his account on job work, if the goods are removed by the job worker without payment of duty. In other words, the Rule does not give room by itself to be interpreted that even if the job workers has rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
