TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay duty on final products is not supported by any legal provision. If the job work procedure is not followed then the duty liability is on the person who undertakes the manufacture activity. In the present case, it is the person who undertakes galvanization who is liable to duty, if any. As such, we find that the original authority is in error in his finding. In the statements of the proprietor of the appellant's firm various categories of the items and nature of process undertakes and nature of process undertaken on such items were given. It is necessary for the original authority to examine the processes carried out category wise and to give finding on such process resulted in production of totally a new identifiable and marketable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Counsel for the appellants Shri P.K.Mittal submitted that the appellants are engaged both in trading of steel items like angles, channels, etc. and are also engaged in the cutting and welding of these items as per requirement of the buyers. They get these items galvanized, as and when required, by the job worker. The appellants do not have any facility for extensive fabrication of steel structure or for galvanizing steel items. Learned Counsel submitted that the department's case is that all items cleared by the appellants are liable to central excise duty because: (a) cutting and welding resulted in new structural product and (b) galvanizing steel items amounts to manufacture. Learned Counsel strongly pleaded that the original auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the argument of the appellant that they cannot be held liable for manufacturing process done by the job worker has strong force and should be examined by the Revenue. The adjudicating authority was directed to examine excisability of the product sold by the appellants by grouping like goods together and giving clear finding whether the process amounts to manufacture and specified duty liability by products of each group. 8. On examination the Impugned order, we find that there is no detailed discussion regarding nature of process undertaken by the appellant and nature of emerging final products. The order mentions that the appellants have undertaken the process of cutting and welding, drilling, grinding and galvanizing on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been supported by the original authority with source. Further, observation of the original authority that it is the duty of the appellant to follow the procedure for job work notification and to pay duty on final products is not supported by any legal provision. If the job work procedure is not followed then the duty liability is on the person who undertakes the manufacture activity. In the present case, it is the person who undertakes galvanization who is liable to duty, if any. As such, we find that the original authority is in error in his finding. 12. In the statements of the proprietor of the appellant's firm various categories of the items and nature of process undertakes and nature of process undertaken on such items were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
