TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the process of manufacture adopted by the respondent squarely falls within the definition of “job work”. Otherwise also even if the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was denied to the respondent that excise duty would have been passed on to Principal manufacturer who would have availed Cenvat credit on entire duty paid on Aluminium Sulphate cleared by the respondent. Therefore, analyzing from this angle also the entire exercise would have been revenue neutral. - Decided in favor of assessee. - E/1054/2005 - A/686/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 12-6-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.K. Verma, AR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent contested the show cause notice and claimed that since he was a job worker of M/s. HLL and he has processed the input Alumina Hydrate supplied by the principal manufacturer M/s. HLL he was entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 214/86-C.E. After hearing the parties the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division Chindwara confirmed duty demand of Rs. 32,875/- against the respondent along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon him. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order-in-original the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order accepted the appeal and set aside the duty demand as well as penalty imposed vide order-in-original. 5. Feeling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the matter of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497. 8. We have considered the submissions made by ld. AR and perused the record. At the outset, we may note that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that in the said case the Supreme Court was concerned with the meaning and scope of the expression job work as defined in the Notification No. 119/75-C.E., in which notification the explanation defines expression job work as follows :- The expression job work shall mean such items of work where an article intended to undergo manufacturing process is supplied to the job worker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that the job work done by him falls within the expression job work as defined under explanation to the Notification No. 214/86-C.E. which reads thus :- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) manufactured in a factory as a job work and used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products (on which duty of excise is leviable whether in whole or in part) specified in column (3) of the said Table, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nition of job work as defined in the explanation to the notification. Contention of the appellant is that admittedly only one raw material Alumina Hydrate was supplied by the principal manufacturer and the other main raw material Sulphuric Acid was procured by the respondent himself as such the job of manufacture of Aluminium Sulphate done by the respondent is not covered within the definition of the job work given in the explanation to the notification. We do not find merit in this contention for the reason that the explanation defining the expression job work does not provide that all the raw materials for manufacture of final product must be supplied by the principal manufacturer. Instead as per the explanation the job work means ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
