Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Thermax Babcock And Wilcox Ltd., Thermax Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I

2017 (12) TMI 266 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Liability of duty on intermediate goods - job-work - who is liable, job-worker or principal manufacturer? - Rule 4 (5) (a) and Rule 4 (6) of CCR - N/N. 214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 - whether job-worker is exempt from duty on intermediate goods when principal manufacturer discharges such duty? - Held that: - the fact remains is that neither the goods after jobwork were cleared as such on payment of duty nor were used in manufacture of dutiable final products by the Principal manufacturer. Hence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e premises of jobworker after payment of duty. Notably it is not the case of the appellant that the Principal manufacturer paid duty at anytime as the goods manufactured by him were exempted from duty. Thus the liability for payment of duty on such intermediate goods manufactured by the Jobworker is on jobworker only. - The Jobworker, M/s Thermax being manufacturer of excisable goods is liable to pay duty on the intermediate goods manufactured by him on jobwork basis which supplied to their .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Babcock ) and the job worker M/s. Thermax Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Thermax), the Division Bench was of opinion that the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "2001 Rules") and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "2002 Rules") makes the job worker liable to duty on the intermediate manufactured by it for the principal manufacturer when pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xempted from levy of duty on intermediate manufactured by it when principal manufacturer discharges such duty. Accordingly, following question has been referred by the Division Bench for answer by the Larger Bench: In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the principal manufacturer (Babcock) clears the final product without payment of duty by availing exemption under a notification, whether the job-worker M/s Thermax, who manufactures intermediate parts of boiler on the inputs se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

above said notification was taken by the appellants without following the procedure prescribed thereby, the appellants had pleaded before Authority below that the job worker appellant was not governed by Notification 214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 since Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 read with Rule 4(6) of the said Rules granting exemption of duty to a job worker. 3. Both sides say that the dispute covered the period September 2001 to June 2002 and the dispute before Division .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

E dated 25.3.1986 and has not taken benefit thereof. The referring Bench found in clear terms that Babcock (the principal manufacturer) had not paid duty on the intermediate, clearing final product exempt from duty under a different notification. So also, Thermax (the job worker) did not pay duty on the intermediate manufactured by it for Babcock. Examination of the reference Bench was confined to the fact situation pleaded by the appellant before learned adjudicating authority that it has not f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant, reads as under: The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the assessee taking the CENVAT credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days of their being sent to a job worker and if th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r input to the job worker through records, challans and memos or any other document and take cenvat credit on such input, he is obliged to discharge the ultimate excise duty liability arising on intermediate goods manufactured by the job worker for it. 4.4 The sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 which allows a job worker to clear the final products from its factory with the permission of Commissioner, as that stood in the statute book at the relevant time was placed by the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l products to be cleared from the premises of the job worker. 4.5 It is submission of the appellants that Rule 4(5)(a) does not oblige a job worker to pay duty on intermediate goods which can be inferred from the implications of the provisions contained thereon as has been held by Tribunal in the case of M. Tex & D.K. Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (136) ELT 73 (Tri.-Del). Appellants further says that when two Members of the Bench hearing the said case differed in their opinion, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Modvat credit Inputs used by job workers in job working contracts Subject : Availability of Modvat credit on inputs used by job workers in job-working contracts - Regarding. Instances have come to the notice of the Board where job workers have availed the credit on inputs used for job-work done by them under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Under the provisions of Rule 57F(4), a manufacturer can get the job work done on his inputs or on partially processed inp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder erstwhile Rule 57F on the subject under Central Excise Act, 1944 was more strict. But liberal position has been enacted in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. Appellants further relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Vandana Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2014 (307) ELT 528 (Tri.-Mum.) to support its contention. It was emphasized by appellants that the view of the CBE&C exempting the job worker from duty liability can be appreciated from para 3.18 of its Manual (copy of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the duty in such case is required to be paid by the principal manufacturer only and the job worker shall have no option to pay duty. 4.7 Further, relying on the judgment of Tribunal in the case of Dhana Singh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2015 (326) ELT 609 (Tri.-Ahmd.), appellants say that by necessary implication of Rule 4(5)(a) the job worker is exempt from duty liability on intermediate goods when that is discharged by principal manufacturer. (Relying on the decision of Apex Court in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n respect of applicability of 2001 Rules. 5. Revenue, per contra, submits that Thermax is holding company and Babcock is a subsidiary thereof. Both units were situated at the same place at the material time. The facts on record demonstrate that "Babcock" (principal manufacturer) received input and took credit of the excise duty paid thereon and removed such input to "Thermax" (job worker) for use in the manufacture of intermediate goods for it for ultimate use thereof in manu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the material period, it was submitted by Revenue that the 2001 Rules were the successor Rules of 1944 and various subjects of 1944 Rules were considered by legislature while incorporating the 2001 Rules as well as the subsequent 2002 Rules. Similarly sub-section (4) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has also made provision to give effect to the notifications issued under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore those notifications are deemed to have been issued under the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment to deal with the law relating to duties and obligations of assessees under such Rules. Relying on para 4 and 5 of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Facit Asia Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1991 (54) ELT 347 (Tri.-Chennai), Revenue submitted that Rule 57F(2) was similar to Rule 4(5)(a) of 2001 Rules and the decision in Facit Asia (supra) case was followed in the case of CCE Vs. Bright Steel Mac Fabrics - 1997 (94) ELT A145 (SC). In Bright Steel case the job worked goods were tested under the provisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the context of those rules cannot be equated with each other, since the facts and circumstance of each cases leads to its own decision. 5.3 Revenue further relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Desh Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Delhi - 2000 (122) ELT 481 (Tri.-Delhi) to say that following of procedure prescribed by Notification 214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 is mandatory for the principal manufacturer as well as job worker to clear the job worked goods without duty by a job worker. In a batch o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ourt held that following of the procedures required by Notification No.214/86-CE is pre-requisite and that being the mandate of law, intermediate goods are allowed to be cleared without payment of duty. Thus mandate of that notification cannot be given go bye. Parties have to prove on record that the supplier of raw material ultimately pays duty on the final product manufactured out of the duty free intermediates used in manufacture of such finished product fulfilling conditions of Notification .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x Court, Civil Appeal was dismissed. Revenue relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of CCE, Surat Vs. Span Heat Transfer Equip. Mfrs. Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (135) ELT 861 (Tri.-Mumbai), to submit that Notification No. 214/86-CE shall have application to all cases of the job worked goods and in terms of such notification, where the job worker does not pay duty on intermediate goods manufactured by it, supplier of the input pays duty thereon. According to Revenue, the decision of Tribunal in Jin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 that shall cause hardship to the job worker. Imposition of duty on the job worker whether shall cause hardship to it is immaterial to law, since the job worker is a manufacturer of intermediate goods following the principles of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madras - 1997 (89) ELT 22 (SC) and liable to duty thereon. Accordingly a job worker clearing jobworked goods duty-free making use of the input supplied by the principal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ance on the decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2007 (211) ELT 481 (Tri.-Mumbai) as well as Kriti Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore - 2017 (350) ELT 257 (Tri.-LB), to submit that payment of 8% and 10% levy by principal manufacturer under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 is not a duty paid under law for which there cannot be further demand of duty on intermediate from principal manufacturer, learned AR of Revenue repels such argument of appellants on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enged before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. But Revenue explains that challenge is not on the nature and character of the amount of 8% or 10% recovered under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. That relates to the basis for calculation of the 8% or 10% recovery. 5.9 Learned AR for Revenue explains that Modvat Scheme is to remove cascading effect as has been held by Apex Court in para 9 and 10 of the said judgment in the case of Ichalkaranji Machine Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - 200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the input and the finished product were excisable commodities and fell under any of the specified chapters in the tariff schedule. Under rule 57G, every manufacturer was required to file a declaration before the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, declaring his intention to take Modvat credit after paying duty on the inputs. The object behind rule 57A read with rule 57G and rule 57-I was utilization of credit allowed towards payment of duty on any of the final products in relation to manufac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ture and ownership of the goods manufactured is irrelevant to law. Therefore the person who manufactures a dutiable goods is liable to pay duty on the incidence of manufacture following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints - 1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC). Realization of duty is on the goods manufactured. Therefore the job worker Thermax having manufactured the goods for Babcock, is liable to duty on the intermediate manufactured by it. To claim no duty liability by Thermax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Further, appellants plea that Rule 4(5)(a) of 2001 Rules and 2002 Rules grants exemption to job worker is baseless. 5.11 Learned AR for Revenue further explains that appellants proposition that where the principal manufacturer discharges duty liability on the intermediate goods, that absolves job worker from such liability shall not be disputed unless such proposition is made with evidence of payment of duty by the principal. In the present case duty was not paid by Babcock. Following the deci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 1944, shall only resolve the dispute. Relying on para 34 of the judgment in the case of Ujagar Printes (supra), Revenue explains that no courts should look into the hardship or loss of benefit of a tax payer while dealing with the provisions of the statute since exemption is an exception and taxing is a Rule. Burden of proof to claim an exemption is required to be discharged by the claimant thereof. Strict construction of exemption provisions is the Rule of law. Apex Court reminds that taxa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efit of exemption of duty therefrom, it is necessary to satisfy the condition of Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 as has been held in that case and such decision upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (139) ELT A88 (SC). 6. In its rejoinder, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the judgments relied upon by it exempts a job worker from duty liability. The decision in M. Tex (supra) does not specifically say whether there was discharge of duty liability by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and cannot be said to be a decision under the earlier Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Revenue discards such plea relying on decision in Kartar Rolling Mills (supra) as well as Desh Rolling Mills (supra) stating that those were decided in the context of Rule 57F(2) and held that compliance to Notification 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 is mandatory. The duty not paid on input not being taken credit in Desh Rolling Mills case (supra), Tribunal held that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ara 3 of the judgment is read. It is held that Rule 57F has a special procedure and does not require duty liability on the intermediate to be discharged by job worker. The said para reads as under: 3. We are also in agreement with the appellant's contention that Rule 57C debars taking of credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product, if final product is exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to nil rate of duty. As such, to att .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

77) E.L.T. 350 (Tri.)] and after taking note of the Ministries clarifications issued vide Circular No.10/75/CX. 6, it was held that clearance under goods under provision of 191BB for export without payment of duty would not get covered by the above expression. Reference was made to the advice received from the Ministry of Law dealt in the paragraph of 9 in the said decision. It was opined in the said letter of the Law Ministry that the term exempted has a definite connotation. The same as attrib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terms of the Rule 57F(3) that the duty does not get paid at the job worker's end at the time of clearance of the goods, but ultimately gets paid at the manufacturer's end. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the decision rendered in the case of Bajaj Tempo and Jindal Polymers. 6.3 According to appellant, payment of duty in terms of Section 5A notification i.e. 214/86-CE is not the mandate of law for which appellant relies on RSWH Ltd. 2014 (343) ELT 1041 (Tri.-Del.), to sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be used by the Principal Manufacturer in the manufacture of final product remained undisputed. M/s. Thermax as a jobworker manufactured boiler parts for M/s. Thermax Babcock using the inputs supplied to it and cleared the same back to M/s. Thermax Babcock who used such intermediate goods in manufacture of final products but did not pay any duty on clearance of such final products. 7.1 The term manufacture is defined under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act which includes any process (i) In .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer, and the word manufacturer shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacturer of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account; [Emphasis supplied] The definition of the manufacturer says that any person who is engaged in any of the activity specified in clause (i) to (iii) of Secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. The relevant exmption Notification No. 214/ 86 CE dt 25.03.1986 as amended was subject matter of consideration in the adjudication. That was issued by the Government in terms of Rule 8 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. By virtue of Section 5 A (4) the legislature has provided that the exemption provided under Rule 8 (1) shall continue to remain in force. The relevant Section 5A (4) as was in force during the material period reads as under: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly provided in such notification, no exemption therein shall apply to excisable goods which are produced or manufactured- (i) in a [free trade zone [or a special economic zone]] and brought to any other place in India; or (ii) by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking and (ii) [brought to any place in India]. Explanation. In this proviso, ["free trade zone", ["special economic zone"]] and "hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking" shall have the same mea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se, exempt from payment of duty of excise, under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be stated in such order, any excisable goods on which duty of excise is leviable.] [(2A) The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of clarifying the scope or applicability of any notification issued under sub-section (1) or order issued under sub-section (2), insert an explanation in such notification or order, as the case may be, by notification in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty) may be granted by providing for the levy of a duty on such goods at a rate expressed in a form or method different from the form or method in which the statutory duty is leviable and any exemption granted in relation to any excisable goods in the manner provided in this sub-section shall have effect subject to the condition that the duty of excise chargeable on such goods shall in no case exceed the statutory duty. Explanation. Form or method, in relation to a rate of duty of excise means th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

continue to have the same force and effect after such commencement until it is amended, varied, rescinded or superseded under the provisions of this section.] (5) Every notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A) shall, unless otherwise provided, come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette.] 7.3 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000 and 2002 Rules were framed under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act and Finance Act, 1994. Tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from Principal manufacturer reads as under : Specified goods manufactured in a factory as a job work and used in the manufacture of final products In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods specified in column (1) of the Table hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) manufactured in a factory as a job work and :- (a) used in relation to the manufacture of final products, specified .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dia in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 108/95-Central Excises, dated the 28th August, 1995, or (iii) for removal under bond for export, or (b) cleared as such from the factory of the supplier of raw materials or semi-finished goods - (i) on payment of duty for home consumption (on which duty of excise is leviable whether in whole or in part); or (ii) without payment of duty under bond for export; or (iii) without payment of duty to a unit in a free trade zone or to a hundred .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thereon, which is specified in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (2) The exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to the said goods in respect of which :- (i) the supplier of the raw material or semi-finished goods gives an under-taking to the [Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise ] having jurisdiction over the factory of the job worker that the said goods shall be (a) used in or in relation to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 108/95-Central Excises, dated the 28th August, 1995; or". (c) removed on payment of duty for home consumption from his factory, or (d) used in the manufacture of goods of the description specified in column (1) of the table hereto annexed by another job worker for further used in any of the manner provided in clause (a), (b) and (c) as above. (ii) the said supplier produces evidence that the said goods have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y operation which is essential for the aforesaid process. Explanation II shall be omitted. (vide Notification No. 33/2000-C.E. dt. 31.03.2000) TABLE Description of Inputs Description of final products (1) (2) All goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), other than high speed diesel oil and motor spirit, commonly known as petrol. All goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), other than the following .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

covered by Para (1) and Para (2) of the Notification, manufactured by the jobworker, are exempted only if the same are used by the Principal Manufacturer in relation to the manufacture of final products on which duty of excise is leviable or which are cleared as such from the factory of supplier of raw material or semi finished goods either without payment of duty under bond for export or on payment of duty for home consumption. Such exemption is applicable only to those goods in respect of whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd 2002 Rules. Appellants plea was and their contention is that the job-worked goods were exempted from duty on the clearance thereof at the job-worker's end, by virtue of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 relying upon Rule 4 (6) of the said Rules, appellant claimed that the Principal manufacturer can also remove the goods from the job-worker premises either on payment of duty or for export, under Bond. The Rule 4 (5) (a) and Rule 4 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d and eighty days, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs or capital goods by debiting the CENVAT credit or otherwise, but the manufacturer can take the CENVAT credit again when the inputs or capital goods are received back in his factory Rule 4(6) The Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer of the final products who has sent the input or partially processed inputs outside his factory to a jo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urer who has availed cenvat credit on such inputs. Pertinently, Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is concerned with the conditions under which a manufacturer is allowed to avail cenvat credit. Rule 4 (5) (a), not cast any liability of duty upon the principal manufacturer who has sent the inputs for job-work other than the condition that in case of non receipt of goods within the stipulated period he shall be liable to reverse the cenvat credit availed on such inputs. The rule is confined to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

applicable only when principal manufacturer discharges the excise duty on finished goods which is manufactured by the job worker. This Rule does not allow the job worker to remove finished goods without payment of duty. Such a situation arises in case where the cenvated inputs are sent for job-work and finished goods manufactured therefrom is cleared from the job-work premises. It is a facility to avoid the return of the finished goods to the factory of Principal manufacturer and also to save th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the purpose of levy of duty and thus any person who has undertaken the activity of manufacture is liable to pay duty. In order to save the jobworker from payment of duty the Principal manufacture has to own the liability to pay such duty. It is only by virtue of the Notification No.214/86 CE dt. 25.03.1986 that the liability of the jobworker to pay duty is transferred to the Principal manufacturer who undertakes to pay duty. 7.7 The intention of enactment of Notification(supra) was to shift the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot apply. In that case, it is the ultimate manufacturer i.e the jobworker who has to pay the duty. Following the procedure and conditions of the Notification(supra) only by the Principal manufacturer, the jobworker would be saved from payment of duty on goods manufactured by him. 7.8 In the case under reference, the facts of non payment of duty on final products by the Principal manufacturer is not disputed. The goods received from the jobworker were not used in the manufacture of dutiable final .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o.214/86-CE. If the contention of the Appellant is accepted it would lead to the situation where neither the Principal manufacturer nor the jobworker would pay duty, which has not been legislated. 7.9 The Appellant has relied upon the Tribunal's order in case of M/s M.Tex & D.K. Processors P. Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (136) ELT 73 (TRI DEL) to support their views. However the facts are entirely different as the Principal manufacturer was sending goods to the jobworker in that case under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the manufacture of final products and return the same to his factory within a period of sixty days or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise may allow in this behalf, for- (i) further use in the manufacture of the final product; or (ii) removing after payment of duty for home consumption; or (iii) removing the same without payment of duty under bond for export." Since the rule provided for exemption where the Principal Manufacturer pays duty on finished goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sending of cenvated inputs to the jobworker. 7.10 In the present case the fact remains is that neither the goods after jobwork were cleared as such on payment of duty nor were used in manufacture of dutiable final products by the Principal manufacturer. Hence the duty liability would be on the real manufacturer of goods i.e the Jobworker. Since the Principal manufacturer pays the duty on the product arising out of manufacture even at the jobworkers end, he is eligible to avail credit. The Rule 4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty on such intermediate goods manufactured by the Jobworker is on jobworker only. 7.12 The Tribunal Order in case of Vandana Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2014 (307) ELT 528 (TRI) and Mukesh industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2009 (248) ELT 203 (TRI) were rendered considering Rule 4 (5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 Rules as pari materia to 57 F (4) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. However in our considered view Rule 57F (4) provided for payment of duty by the Princi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ates the payment of duty by the Principal manufacturer and therefore no duty payment was required to be made. Since the principal manufacturer was paying duty, the jobwork was exempted from duty. Even the Tribunal Order relied upon by the Appellant in case of ESSAR STEEL LTD. Vs. CCE, RAIPUR - 2016 (341) ELT 145 (TRI) also says that the jobworker is not liable to pay duty if the Principal manufacturer is paying duty on the jobwork on returned goods at the time of clearance as such from the facto .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the Provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and have carefully perused the same. The language in both these Rules gives no scope to infer that if the job worker was not required to pay duty in terms of Rule 57F(4) it could be required to pay duty in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) because the conditions of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 were stringent compared to the conditions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules inasmuch as Rule 57F(4) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntially pari materia the Provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Indeed vide judgments in the case Mukesh Industries Ltd. v. CCE, (supra) CESTAT essentially held as under : Duty liability - Job worker - Respondents receiving grey MMF and knitted or crocheted fabrics from principal manufacturer under the cover of challans issued under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and after completion of job work the goods stand returned to the principal manufacturer - Rule 57F(3) of er .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hile Central Excise Rules, 1944 corresponding to Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004, which returned after processing to principal manufacturer under said Challans without payment of excise duty - Demand raised as processed fabric not exempt under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. - HELD : Inputs received under Central Excise Challans and not under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. - As per C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 306/22/97-CX, dated 30-3-1997 for job work undertaken in terms of Rule 57F(4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

esh Industries Vs Commissioner 2009 (248) ELT 203 (TRI), Vandana Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai III - 2014 (307) ELT 528 (TRI), are also on the same views and thus not applicable in the present set of facts. 7.14 The Appellant also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s International Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bihar - 2005 (183) ELT 293 (SC). In the said case the dispute related to valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of duty at the Jobworkers end. The controversy was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n eligibility of the jobworker to claim credit where no duty was paid by them. However the facts of the present case are different as it deals with the situation as to who should be liable to pay duty when the Principal manufacture is not discharging duty either on jobwork goods or on final products in which such jobwork goods are consumed. In such case the responsibility lies the Jobworker who is the ultimate manufacturer of the goods to discharge the excise duty. 7.16 Revenue has placed relian .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as he was liable to pay duty on clearance of the final goods. Tribunal held that had the Notification No. 214/86 not issued, even under Rule 57F (2) the jobworker had to pay duty. Thus it follows that it is only by virtue of notification(supra) the goods manufactured at Joboworker's end are exempted only if the same or the final product in which such intermediate goods are used are liable for duty at the end of the Principal manufacturer which is absent in the present reference. 7.17 In case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and upon the jobworker as the jobwork activity was not undertaken in terms of Notification No.214/86 -CE. The Tribunal held as under : Notification No. 214/86 provides exemption to the goods manufacture in a factory as a job work and used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product on which duty of excise is leviable whether in whole or in part subject to the condition that supplier of the raw materials gives an undertaking to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, having jurisdict .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rovisions of Notification No. 214/86. In view of absence of any material to this effect, it is not open to the Appellants to claim that they were working under the provisions of Notification No. 214/86. The copies of challans brought on record by the Appellants only refer to the movement of excisable goods under rule 57F(2). In view of this, the reliance placed by the Appellants on the observation of the Tribunal in respect of Notification 214/86 in the remand order is not tenable. We also obser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

authority has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Jina Bakul Forge Pvt. Ltd (supra). Accordingly, we uphold the demand of Central Excise Duty as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Orders. 7.19 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Kartar Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 2006 (197) ELT 151 (SC) held that the assessee jobworker i.e the Appellant failed to bring any evidence on record to prove that the supplier of raw material had su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.