Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (4) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eared 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. As regards, the question of limitation it is seen that so far as SE are concerned, there was correspondence between KEL and the Department with regard to sending of semi finished/ raw material to SE for certain job work and hence, it cannot be said that the Department was not aware of the activity of SE. Similarly, in respect of JMAPL, it is seen that during 2004, there was correspondence between them and the Department with regard to the nature of their activity and whether they are eligible for exemption un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he 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 stators with copper wire wound on the same and varnished were being returned back by JMAPL to KEL. In case of M/s Shivam Enterprises, they were receiving from KEL the stamping rotors and elect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 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 sent back by the job workers to KEL are not marketable, no central excise duty would be chargeable, that in any case, even if the Department holds that the goods made by the appellants are marketable and, hence, excisa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o 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. 50/03-CE. However, during the period of dispute, only KEL were availing of the exemption under notification no. 50/03-CE and the appellants had not made any specific claim for the exemption under this notification. JMAPL received stators, wind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rts 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 that so far as SE are concerned, there was correspondence between KEL and the Department with regard to sending of semi finished/ raw material to SE for certain job work and hence, it cannot be said that the Department was not aware of the activity of SE. Similarly, in respect of JMAPL, it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates