TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 10.6.2003 is that such goods should be used by the principal manufacturer in the manufacture of goods which are cleared on payment of duty. This condition is not satisfied by BTL inasmuch as they were availing area based exemption. Consequently, appellant will not be eligible for clearance of goods to BTL without payment of duty under N/N. 214/86 - demand upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal No.58180 of 2013 (DB) - A/56776/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri K K Anand, Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Ms Priyanka Goel, Advocates for the Appellants Shri H C Saini, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the said butyl Inner Tubes and butyl rubber compound manufactured by the present appellant as job worker, was being used. As such, the condition of notification No.214/86 CE requiring the use of goods manufactured on job work basis in the manufacture of final product of raw material supplied, and clearance of final product on payment of duty did not get satisfied. 3. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant, by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 18.1.2012. The said show cause notice culminated into passing of present impugned order by Commissioner, confirming the demand and imposition of penalties. 4. With this background we heard Shri K K Anand, Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Ms. Priyanka Goel and Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid. To support his arguments, learned Counsel relied on following judgements: (i) Moon Chemicals Vs. CCE Thiruvananthapuram - [2007 (215) ELT 434 (Tri-Chennai) (para 3) ; (ii) OPG Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tiruchirapalli - [2016 (343) ELT 230](para 15) ; (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise Daman Vs. Valson Industries [2009 (245) ELT 190 (Tri-Ahmd)] (para 3); (iv) Desh Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Delhi - [2000 (122) ELT 481 (Tri)] (para 5); (v) P R Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirupathi - [2010 (249) ELT 232 (Tri-Bang)] (para 6.5 6.6); (vi) Commissioner vs. PR Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. - [2010 (260) ELT A 84 (SC). 8. On the other hand, Shri H C Saini, learned counsel for the department ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -original has observed as under: I notice that the principal manufacturer had not filed any declaration as stipulated under the exemption Notification No.214/86 CE dated 25.3.1986 for the Butyl Inner Tubes manufactured and cleared by the noticee without payment of duty in the year 2008-2009; that the letter dated 05.06.2008 filed by the noticee informing manufacture of tube on job work basis for M/s. Birla Tyres also does snot reflect that the Principal manufacturer is not registered under Central Excise; that even the declaration filed by M/s. Birla Tyre dated 26.3.2009 to the Department on 01.04.2009 did not reveal the manner of payments of duty on final gods as they had not taken the registration. Thus the notice has been correctl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
