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 Varroc Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

2016 (6) TMI 272 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Demand of duty from the Job worker who is the actual manufacturer - Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - Held that:- Principal Manufacturer (s) have not been issued any SCN by the Revenue and the job worker, who is the appellant assessee, has only been issued the SCN (Show-Cause Notice). The job worker, who is the appellant assessee has been treated by the Revenue as the manufacturer by the Central Excise Authorities, with whom the Principal Manufacturer (s) filed the declarati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bility will be for the clearances made by the appellant assessee for the said period of preceding one year.

The appellant has already been given the benefit of refund of service tax paid by the lower adjudicating authority, which can be adjusted against their liability of payment of Central Excise duty for the one year period being confirmed by this order. We also take note that the appellant made a predeposit of ₹ 15.00 lakhs, which can also be adjusted against their liability .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f receipt of this order.

As no kind of concealment of the facts on the part of the appellant and all along Revenue was in full knowledge of the facts and even the Audit team of the Department visited the appellants premises and advised them to pay service tax instead of Central Excise duty and the appellant had paid the said service tax then. Consequently, there is no justification for imposition of any penalty on the appellant under the law of Central Excise. The Penalty imposed on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

b work under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, have not been fulfilled. Here, one of the conditions of the Notification 214/86-CE (Supra) is that the responsibility of discharging liability of Central Excise duty on the final product, is to be honoured by the Principal Manufacturer, as per the Declaration filed with the Central Excise Authority ; this has not been complied with. 3. The appellant was issued SCN by Central Excise treating them as manufacturer under Central Excise law fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

djustment of eligible amount of Cenvat credit against the total amount of duty confirmed and reduced the penalty to equal to the differential amount of duty after adjustment of the eligible amount of Cenvat credit against total confirmed amount of duty. 3.2 The appellant is now before this Tribunal contesting the order of the lower appellate authority. 4. The appellant represented by Shri Nagnath Mathdevru, mainly argues that they are only job workers for the Principal Manufacturer (s), namely, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds. 4.1 The appellant assessee also mentions that Audit was conducted in their factory during 01.11.2006 to 07.11.2006 and the Audit Team of the Department advised them to pay service tax on job charges collected from the Principal Manufacturer (s) under the category of Business Auxiliary Service; they paid service tax as advised by the Audit Party of the Department. 4.2 The appellant also states that they have already made a predeposit of ₹ 15.00 lakhs as per the CESTAT s Stay Order No.69 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

their responsibility to pay Central Excise duty on the goods cleared on job work by them. The Principal Manufacturer (s) have filed the declaration to the effect that : 1. (a) …………………. (b) …………………. (c) …………………. (d) …………………. (e) …………………. (f) …&hell .....

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 only the job work under Notification No.214/86-CE (Supra) and payment of duty of Central Excise on the goods cleared by them on job work was not their responsibility. Further, when the Audit was conducted in their premises, the appellant assessee immediately made the payment of service tax on job work charges as advised by the Audit Party of the Department. Therefore, no liability of Central Excise duty can be fixed on the appellant asseessee. 4.4 The appellant also cites in support the CEST .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been honoured, it is the responsibility of the job worker, who has done the manufacturing job to pay the duty of Central Excise. The job worker cannot argue that it is not their responsibility to pay duty when actually, it is they, who have done the job work for the Principal Manufacturer and when there has been a declaration filed with the Central Excise (though by the Principal Manufacturer), that the responsibility of discharging liability of payment of Central Excise duty has been undertake .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paid either by the job worker or by the Principal Manufacturer (s), whereas the Notification No.214/86-CE lays down that the Central Excise duty is liable to be paid on the final product to be cleared by the Principal Manufacturer ; the said final product would cover definitely the goods, which have been cleared by the job worker to the Principal Manufacturer (s). 6.1 It is also a fact that the Principal Manufacturer (s) have not been issued any SCN by the Revenue and the job worker, who is the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot any suppression of facts by the appellant, any demand of Central Excise duty can be made for normal period of one year only. In other words, liability of payment of duty would be for the preceding one year from the date of SCN, i.e. 07.10.2008 ; Central Excise duty liability will be for the clearances made by the appellant assessee for the said period of preceding one year. 6.2 The appellant has already been given the benefit of refund of service tax paid by the lower adjudicating authority, .....

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