Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Ginni Non Woven Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As. M/s Yash Technologies Pvt Ltd) , Shri N.K. Indoria, Director Versus CCE & ST, Noida

2015 (9) TMI 89 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty demand - Job work - clearances for export made by the appellant from the job worker's premises - Whether in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 B, the appellant company was liable to pay duty in respect of these goods - Held that:- Person whether a manufacturer or a trader can export the goods under bond under Rule 19 from the factory where the same have been manufactured. Since in the present case, there is no dispute that the necessary conditions for export under bond without payment of duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Penalty under Rule 26 - Held that:- while at the time of officers' visit to the factory on 24.11.2004, the RG-I register was not there but the same was produced on 29.11.2004 - imposition of fine of ₹ 50,000/- is on a much higher side, when duty involved on the goods is only ₹ 38,000/-. In view of this, the redemption fine is reduced - penalty under Rule 26 is not sustainable. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeals Nos. E/1585 and 1584/2006-EX(DB) - FINAL ORDER N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th anything contained in these rules, every person not being an export-oriented unit or a unit located in special economic zone, who gets yarns or fabrics produced or manufactured on his account, on job work basis, shall obtain registeration, maintain accounts, pay duty leviable on such goods and comply with all the relevant provisions of these rules as if he is an assessee." In terms of the CBEC Circular No.795/28/2004 dated 28.07.2004, "the person registered under Rule 12 B even thou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the job workers. For this purpose, in the ARE-Is the date and time of the clearance were being filled in by the job worker. There is no dispute regarding the export of the goods out of India and that, the proof of export has been received. The Department, however, is of the view that in terms of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 B, a person registered under Rule 12 B could export the goods got manufactured through job worker only on payment of duty. In this regard, the department relies upon the wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emises the excisable goods after completion of job work are intended to be cleared, before the goods are cleared from the premises of the job worker. The job worker shall fill up the particulars of date and time of removal of goods before the clearance of the goods. After such clearance, the job worker shall intimate to the said person, the date and time of clearance of the goods for completion of the particulars by the said person in the duplicate copy of the invoice." Accordingly, the Dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

records were produced. Since on 24.11.2004 the appellant could not produce any records, the processed fabrics found in stock were seized. The Department was of the view that since these goods were not accounted for in terms of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules, the same would be liable for confiscation. 1.3 In view of the above, a show cause notice was issued for demand of duty amounting to ₹ 19,41,761/- in respect of the fabrics cleared for export from the job worker' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act read with Section 25 of the Central Excise Act. Besides this, a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was imposed on Shri N.K. Indoria, Director. By the same order, the processed fabrics valued at ₹ 5,95,136/- seized from the premises of the appellant were ordered to be confiscated under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules with option to be redeemed on the payment of redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/-. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Board's Circular No.196/26/84-CX dated 28.07.2004 the appellant was to be treated as manufacturer for all practical purposes, that the appellant during the period of dispute got certain grey fabrics manufactured and got the same processed through job workers and exported directly from the premises of the job workers under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, that the clearances for export had been made under ARE-I which were signed by the appellant, that there is no dispute that the goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Central Excise Rules, which mentions that,"if the person registered under Rule 12 B of the Central Excise Rules, desires clearance of the excisable goods for home consumption or for export from the premises of the job worker, he shall pay duty on such excisable goods and prepare an invoice', that in this sub-rule (2), there is no prohibition that such a person cannot export the goods through job worker under Rule 19 of the Rules and since that the appellant registered under Rule 12 B wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

about ₹ 5,95,136/-, Shri Sharma pleaded that the goods had been accounted for in the account being mentioned in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules and at the time of the officers' visit to their premises, RG-I register had been sent to Head Office for computerization and subsequently, the stock account maintained by the appellant had been produced on 29.11.2004 and that in view of this, the order of confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty is not correct. He, there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an invoice". With regard to the confiscation of the goods, Shri Negi pleaded that even though the appellant had subsequently produced the RG-I register on 29.11.2004, it had been maintained only upto August, 2004, which showed that the appellant were not properly maintaining the stock account of the finished goods in terms of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rker's premises without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules. There is no dispute that the clearance had been affected in ARE-Is duly filled in and signed by them and the proof of export has been received. The only point of dispute is whether in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 B, the appellant company was liable to pay duty in respect of these goods. The stand of the Department is that in view of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of the Rule 12 B that "even if the per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty on his own and not having a factory, should be treated as a manufacturer for all practical purposes. In terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, "any excisable goods may be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, as may be approved by the Commissioner under this Rule." Thus a person whether a manufacturer or a trader can export the goods under bond under Rule 19 from the factory where the same h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing penalty of equal amount on the appellant is not sustainable and has to be set aside. 7. As regards the confiscation of the goods valued at ₹ 5,95,136/- for non-accountal of the goods, there is no dispute that while at the time of officers' visit to the factory on 24.11.2004, the RG-I register was not there but the same was produced on 29.11.2004. In this regard, while the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative is that register was maintained only upto the August, 2004. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version