TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Satyapal, AR for the appellant None. for the respondent PER: ASHOK JINDAL The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the, ground that benefit of Notification No. 214/86 is not available to the 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent received scrap from various manufacturers of hand tools. The scrap is converted into billets and thereafter into rectangular parts. These rectangular parts are sent to hand tool manufacturers who use them and exported the same. As the principal manufacturers has not paid duty on the job work goods, therefore, it was alleged that the respondent is not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 214/86. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to demand duty from the respondent. The matter was adjudicated, demand against the respondent was confirmed. The 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the billets are manufactured and on that basis, benefit of notification No. 214/86 is not available. Their contention is that these findings of the adjudicating authority cannot sustain in face order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. Their plea is that if the Tribunal had agreed with that view they would have not remanded the matter. In this context, the perusal of final order No. 989-1004/2000-B dated 4/7/2000 referred to above whereunder appellants appeal was allowed by way of remand would reveal that the aspect relating to admissibility of benefit of notification No. 214/86 dated 25/3/86 has amended was duly raised and examined. The relevant para 2 of the Tribunal order dated 4/7/2000 is reproduced below:- The applicants who are represented by Shrie A.R. Madhav Rao learned counsel draw our intention to Tribunal's Final 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 supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinguishing the case on the ground that the case (i.e. case of M/s Ambika Forgings) is not relevant in deciding the issue. The relevant para 4 of CESTAT order which is quite relevant and important in the instant proceedings is reproduced below:- Para 4 According to the appellants sufficient opportunity was not given to them to place their contention with evidence. In addition we find that the facts referred to in the case of Ambika forgings (SUPRA) is more or less similar to the facts of this case and the issue is also w.r.t and the adjudicating authority is not correct in distinguishing the case on the ground that that case is not relevant in deciding the issue. Further more he made the observation that if the goods are exported then the assessee would be entitled to the benefit in terms of 214/86 but on this issue, it appears he 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 conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking and these facts are not in dispute. Therefore, it is to be held that they are entitled for benefit of notification No. 214/86 by applying the ratio of above referred case laws. It may be pertinent to mentioned here that in appeal No. 197/06, it has been observed by the adjudicating authority in order to avail benefit under notification No. 214/86, the suppliers of raw materials are required to submit a undertaking to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner as prescribed under notification No. 214/86 and since in the said case no such undertaking was submitted by the suppliers to the effect, the benefit in terms of notification No. 214/86 has been sought to denied to the appellants. These the appellants had been used in the manufacture of Hand Tools which had been exported. I find in case of export of goods the conditions of notification No. 214/86 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 Punja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tools out of rectangular bars supplied by the appellants (manufactured on job work and the same were exported by them. Vide this office letter of even No. 4830.31 dated 21/0982006, the relevant certificates produced by the appellants were sent to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner, Jalandhar-l and Jalandhar-ll for necessary verification and to ascertain their genuineness and authenticity. It was also specifically mentioned in the letter that in case hand tool manufactures had removed the goods other than by way of export or availing benefit of notification No. 01/93 without payment of duty then proceedings would have been initiated against them for recovery of duty. Vide his letter C.No. P-20/CE/Jal-1/Misc/12/2006/11192 dated 23/10/2006 and the Asstt Commissioner Central Excise Division, Jalandhar-l has submitted the report in respect of the parties namely 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liability was on the said hand tools manufacturers and there exists no case for any demand of duty from the appellants. The Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jalandhar-l has submitted his report vide letter c. No. P-20/CEJAL-1/MISC/12/2006/4626 dated 25/05/2007 and the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jalandhar-ll has submitted his report vide and C.No. 28/05/2007. The reports submitted by the Asstt. Commissioner do not lead to any inference at all that the said hand tools manufactured out of rectangular bars supplied by the appellants had not been exported. Otherwise also in terms of provisions of notification NO. 214/86 when the supplier of inputs has filed the undertaking that he shall be responsible for discharge of duty on the goods manufactured out of the rectangular duty liability is attracted towards the appellants on this 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
