9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta Sahib, State in Himachal Pradesh. The units are located in the areas specified under notification no. 50/03-CE. The factories of both the appellants are adjoining the factory of principal manufacturer M/s Khaitan Electricals Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as KEL) who during the period of dispute, that is, during period from 2004 to 2008 were manufacturing electrical fans. KEL were sending the stators winding wires and top and bottom covers to JMAPL for certain job works. JMAPL were winding the wire on the stator and thereafter were putting varnish on the wires wound on the stators. In respect of top and bottom covers, the same were subjected to some machining. Top and bottom covers after being machined and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , before being used for the manufacture of final product, that in view of this, the items which emerged from the factory of JMAPL cannot be called fully finished parts of fans and, hence, the same are not marketable, that in case of SE, they receive the stamping rotors, electrical grade aluminum metal and dies and they fabricate cast and machined rotors which are intermediate product and it is these cast and machined rotors which are sent back to KEL where the same are subjected to further process before being used as part of electrical fans, that in case of SE also, the items which are sent back to KEL cannot be said to fully finished parts of the fans, and hence, the same are not marketable, that when in both the cases the goods being sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of this claim of JMAPL for exemption under notification no. 50/03-CE as no such declaration had been filed by JMAPL at that time. With regard to limitation, he pleaded that longer limitation period under proviso to section 11A(1) has been correctly invoked. He accordingly, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. Both the appellants are job workers for KEL and they subject the goods received from KEL to certain processes and, thereafter, return the same to KEL. There is no dispute that both the appellants and also the principal manufacturer KEL are located in the area specified under notification no. 50/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders, it is seen that no finding has been given by the Commissioner on this point. In our view, the duty would be chargeable on the goods being made by the appellant on job work basis only if, those goods are in fully finished condition and the same are being used by KEL as parts of fans without any further processing. But if, the items being cleared by the appellants are in the nature of semi finished goods which require further processing by KEL for being used as parts of the fans, the same cannot be treated as marketable and hence, excise duty would not be chargeable. For deciding point, this matter would have to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority. 7. As regards, the question of limitation it is seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such by KEL as parts of the fans or whether before being used as parts of fans, required to be subjected to some further process by KEL. If the process undertaken by the appellant is held to be resulting in emergence of marketable and hence, excisable goods and duty demand is confirmed, the same, as discussed above, would be demandable only for normal limitation period and no penalty under section 11AC would be imposable. Beside this, the Commissioner would also consider the appellant s plea with regard to their eligibility for exemption under notification no. 50/03-CE, keeping in view, the Tribunal s judgment in the case of CCE Chandigarh vs Nalagarh Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 2012 (293) ELT-751(Tri. Del). (Dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
