9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order was challenged of the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who granted the benefit of Notification 214/86. Aggrieved from the said, the Revenue is before us. 3. The Id. AR reiterated the grounds of the Appeal and submits that as on the final product duty has not been paid, therefore, benefit of Notification No. 214/86 is not available. 4. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the respondent nor any request for adjournment has been received, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. We have perused the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (A) has examined the issue in detail. The department had been seeking to charge duty of billets bars & rods manufactured by the appellants out of the material (i.e. scrap) supplied by various manufactures of hand tools (the suppliers) and the said suppliers of scrap had filed undertakings in terms of notification No. 214/86 dated 25/3/1986, as amended. It is matter on record that the said suppliers had filed undertakings as required in terms of notification No. 214/86 and thus had taken the liability to discharge obligation laid down in notification No. 214/86 and thus had taken the liability to discharge obligat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Order No. E/1270/98-B1 dated 11/8/98 in which the plea that the hand tools manufacturer had exported the hand tools made out of rectangular bars sent to them by the appellants and hence the bar in Notification No. 214/86 is not attracted, was raised before the Tribunal and the matter was remanded for enabling the appellants to produce evidence in support of their claim that the very goods had been exported. He submits that the same plea was taken in these case also, but was not accepted due to lack of any material on record to substantiate this claim. He submits that if an opportunity is given to the assessee the would be able contained in Notification 214/86 would not apply in the present as the goods cleared for export by the final product manufacturer cannot be deemed to be cleared without payment of duty, so as to attract the disqualification in Notification 214/86. At this juncture, Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR prayers that the other issues raised in the show cause notice and adjudicated upon by the Assistant Commissioner may also be reconsidered and that the entire matter be considered afresh by the Assistant Commissioner, if the matter is remanded." In this para, i find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been examined in detail. It appears that the party also has not placed any evidence to show that the goods are exported by the respective suppliers. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the entire matter requires to be re-considered by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly we are remanding the matter for de-novo consideration. The party should avail this opportunity and adduce the evidence in support of their claim that the very goods had been exported." It will be seen that it has also been mentioned by the Hon'ble Tribunal in this above para that he (i.e. adjudicating authority) had made observations that if the goods are exported then assessee would be entitled for benefit of notification No. 214/86 on this issue. Thus it was accepted by the Tribunal that this activity is covered under job work in terms of Notification No. 214/86 and matter was remanded regarding the fact of export. In other words, if the appellants are able to adduce evidence in support of claim that the very goods have been exported they shall be entitled to benefit of notification No. 214/86. I find that in case of M/s Ambika Forgins referred to above decided by the Hon'ble CES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands complied with as it is settled proposition that goods cleared for export are not goods on which duty is leviable but are goods on which duty is leviable but is not being paid for reasons of export. In case of CCE Chd Vs Alpha Drugs (India) Ltd. reported as 2002(140) ELT 43 (P&H), it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that goods exported under bond without payment of duty is not the same thing as goods wholly exempt or goods chargeable to nil rate of duty. In this cited case law final product was cleared under bond without payment of duty Modvat Credit was sought to be denied to the said party by the department holding that provisions of Rule 57C of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 are attracted. But the Hon'ble High court had held that goods exported under bond without payment of duty is not the same thing as wholly exempt from duty or goods chargeable to nil rate of duty, therefore, the provisions of rule 57C are not attracted and Modvat Credit shall be admissible. Thus the exported goods were held dutiable to qualify for admissibility of modvat credit, The Hon'ble High Court in this case had placed reliance in cases of M/s Relianc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely M/s. Ambika Forging, Jalandhar, M/s. Ajay Industries, jalandhar, M/s B.S. International, Jalandhar and M/s. Bash Tools, Jalandhar. In the report it has been submitted that the records/information desired is more than 9 years old the same are not readily available with the said manufacturers of hand tools. Further with regard to the genuineness/authenticity of the said certificates in respect of these manufactures. It has been intimated by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jalandhar vide his letter C. No. P-20/CE/Jal1/Misc/12/2006/11903 dated 13/11/2006, that on enquiry made from these manufacturers it was informed by the said units that the certificates were issued by them. In respect of M/S Victor Tools Jalandhar, the Asstt. dated 05/12/2006 received in this office on 23/11/2006 has furnished the export and conversation details which tally with the details of export and scrap mentioned in the certificate dated 23/06/2006 issued by a Director of M/S Victor Tools, Jalandhar. These confirmations by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioners indicate that the certificates submitted by the appellants, which were given by the said hand tools manufactures are genuine, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account as No. 214/86 dated 25/3/86, as amended would be admissible to the appellant in these cases.
5. We have seen that as per Notification No. 214/86, the job worker is entitled to clear the goods without payment of duty, in case duty has been paid by the principal manufacturer. The sole ground for denial of the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 to the respondent by the Revenue is that the principal manufacturer has not paid duty. In fact, as principal manufacturer has exported the goods under bond which means that duty is leviable on such goods but is not being paid for reasons of export, therefore, we hold that department has not understood the Notification No. 214/86 in its true spirit. As the Ld. Commissioner (A) has properly examined the issue as recorded above, we do not find any infirmity in the said order.
6. We observe as the goods have been exported under the bond, therefore, the respondent is entitled for benefit of Notification No. 214/86.
7. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. The same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
