TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ober, 2002 to March, 2003 on the goods of chapter 62 is correct and recoverable - as regard the penalty, the appellant being government of India undertaking and issue involved being interpretation of the law in respect of special provisions only in respect of textile articles, we do not find any malafide on the part of the appellant, we therefore set aside penalty imposed u/s 11AC corresponding to the demand of ₹ 67,616/- As regard the demand in respect of goods of Chapter 63 for the period October, 1999 to March, 2003, the lower authority was of the view that appellant had control over the job worker, hence the demand is recoverable from the appellant - is demand justified? - Held that: - arrangement of job work is always the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r textile articles such as bed sheet, pillow over, towels, napkin etc under chapter 63 for the period October, 1999 to March, 2003. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Both the lower authorities have contended that since the job worker had been manufacturing the product under brand name of the appellant and entire control was of the appellant therefore the appellant is required to pay the duty. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner(Appeals) appellant is before us. 2. Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, in case of job work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter 62 there was statutory provisions under Rule 4 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 that in case of job work principle raw material supplier is required to pay the duty. This provision was effected from 1-3-2001, Accordingly demand pertains to the period October, 2002 to March, 2003 on the goods of chapter 62 is correct and recoverable. However as regard the penalty, the appellant being government of India undertaking and issue involved being interpretation of the law in respect of special provisions only in respect of textile articles, we do not find any malafide on the part of the appellant, we therefore set aside penalty imposed under Section 11AC corresponding to the demand of ₹ 67,616/-. As regard the demand in respect of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
