9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee's appeal is directed against order dated 28.01.2009 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee are engaged in the manufacture of food preparation liable to Central Excise duty. Upon scrutiny of records of the appellant-assessee the Revenue entertained a view that they are involved in the manufacture of PET bottles from pre-forms purchased as inputs and cleared the same without payment of duty for filling exempted fruit beverage. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand and recover of Central Excise duty and to impose penalties. After a due process, the original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 61,22,732/- for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot make the appellant -assessee as a manufacturer. The admitted fact of the case is the job worker is an independent legal entity and irrespective of ownership of pre-form or the PET bottle the appellant-assessee having been not involved in any process of manufacture cannot be held as a manufacturer for excise duty purposes. We refer to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints, etc.etc. vs. Union of India and Others - 1988 (38) ELT 535 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the question whether the produces or the manufacturer is or is not the owner of the goods is not determinative of the tax liability. In CCE, Goa vs. Cosme Farma Laboratories - 2015 (318) ELT 545 (SC) the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed fruit pulp is the product subjected to excise levy. In the manufacture of such packed fruit pulp, PET bottle is apparently consumed. We may refer to the Tribunal decision in Mihijam Vanaspati Limited vs. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2001 (129) ELT 631 (Tri. Kolkata) and also Rama Phosphate Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore - 2003 (152) ELT 315 (Tri. Del.). The Tribunal while interpreting the scope of the said notification held that when the tin containers manufactured by the appellant are captively used for packing vanaspati within the factory, the exemption is available to such tin container. The same ratio is applicable to the present case also. As such, we find the appellant-assessee will succeed on both the grounds. 4.&n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
