TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fruit pulp, the same 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. Notification No. 10/96-CE dated 23.07.1996 - captive consumption - eligibility for exemption - Held that:- it is found that the fruit pulp cannot be marketed without being packed in the bottle. The packed fruit pulp is the product subjected to excise levy. In the manufacture of such packed fruit pulp, PET bottle is apparently consumed. By applying to the ratio of decision of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, 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 ₹ 61,22,732/- for the period January, 2004 to July, 2007. 2. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant-assessee and ld. DR for the Revenue and perused appeal records. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee were using the services of job worker for manufacture of fruit pulp in PET bottles. The appellant-assessee procures pre-forms required to manufacture of PET bottles and supply the same to the job worker. The job worker converts the pre-forms into PET bottles and there upon fills the same with fruit pulp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Supreme Court held that when the manufacturing activity was done only by the job workers in their premises and with the help of their labour force and machinery, following the quality control or specification of the principal manufacturer does not make the supplier of raw material as a manufacturer. Similar view was held by the Tribunal in Food Health Care Specialities vs. CCE, Delhi-IV - 2015 (328) ELT 92 (Tri. Del.). The Hon ble Madras High Court in Ashok Leyland Limited vs. CCE - 1993 (68) ELT 65 (Mad.) held that if the job worker is an independent concern and there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such, we find the appellant-assessee will succeed on both the grounds. 4. In view of the above analyses and findings, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant-assessee. 5. We note that the appeal by the Revenue is against order dated 12.10.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal who though held the appellant -assessee as the manufacturer of PET bottles allowed the exemption for captive consumption under Notification No. 10/96-CE. The Revenue is aggrieved against allowing such exemption. In view of our above finding, we find no merit in the appeal by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 6. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that they have filed a miscellaneous applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
