TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No. E/301/2009-DB - Final Order No. 61701 / 2017 - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) Shri. Satyapal, AR for the appellant None - for the respondent ORDER Per : Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) the Revenue filed the present appeal. We have heard Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent. 2. On going through the impugned order, we note that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of motor-vehicle and its parts etc. falling under Chapter 87 95 of the fist schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also doing job work for the other principal manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit availed on the inputs sent for job work. It is the obligation of the principal manufacturer to pay duty on the job work goods under the scheme of Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the finding of the adjudicating authority that the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules do not provide any exemption to job work goods and for that the appellants were required to pay duty on their full value is not as per the scheme of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The duty on such goods was to be discharged by the principal manufacturer and there is no allegation that it was not done. 6. The adjudicating authority while confirming the demand of duty has relied upon the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujjagar Prints- 1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt were working in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules which allows the job worker to clear the final product to the principal manufacturer, without payment of duty, subject to following the requisite procedure. In such a situation it is the liability of principal manufacture to pay the duty. There is no allegation that the principal manufacturers have not discharged the duty burden. 6. The issue was also considered by this Tribunal in the case of Menon Menon Ltd. relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that the said decision of this Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Revenue s appeal stands rejected reported as Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus, Pune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
