TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion of eligibility of the appellant for the said exemption. Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that: - It is not open the appellant to disassociate activity in isolation as the exemption Notification No.214/86 is availed with the conditions put on both principal manufacturer and job worker. Failure of any one of the obligations will make the exemption unavailable - penalty upheld. Appeal allowed in part. - Excise Appeal Nos.52562-52563 of 2014 - A/57388-57389/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 26-10-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Sh. Amit Jain Sh. Rahul Tangri, C. A. for the appellant Sh. R. K. Mishra, AR for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice to the above, the appellants are entitled to avail cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods on job work basis. (b) The quantification of duty demand has not been correctly made. The duty demand has been made in terms of principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Prints -1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC). However, while arriving at the cost of the raw material excise duty component and the freight from the place of supplier to the premises of the appellant should have been excluded. Since these duties were eligible for cenvat they cannot form part of cost of raw material. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Pune Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. - 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC). (d) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of excise is leviable in whole or in part. Admittedly, the final products which are manufactured using the goods manufactured by the appellant in job work did not suffer any duty of excise. This is clearly a violation of the main condition of Notification No.214/86. As such there is no question of eligibility of the appellant for the said exemption. We also refer to the decision of the Tribunal in M/s Farseen Rubber Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore vide Final Order No.56776/2017 dated 27.09.2017. The Tribunal observed that when the job work Notification No.214/86 provides for exemption subject to a condition. Non fulfilment of conditions of duty payment on the final product, due to area based exemption, will make the appellant ineligib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to the decision of Apex Court in Dai Ichi Karkari Ltd. (supra). We note that the original authority recorded that the appellant did not produce supporting documents and also the question of re-quantification will arise only in case cenvat credit is allowed on the inputs. Since we have observed that cenvat credit is eligible to the appellant subject to fulfilment of the documentary support and the inputs falling under the scope of statutory definition Gilder Cenvat Credit Rules, we note that the findings of the original authority is not sustainable in this regard. Documentary evidences as submitted by the appellant are required to be examined for re-quantification of value for excise duty purposes in terms of principle laid dow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [he second appellant is not sustainable. The second appellant was stated to be appointed as Director only on 29.10.2012. The period of dispute in the present appeal is from April 2008 to November, 2011. Hence, we note that the finding of the original authority regarding the penalty on the second appellant is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The appeal by the second appellant is allowed. 10. In view of the above discussions and analyses, the appeal filed by the main appellant is partly allowed and appeal filed by the second appellant is allowed. With reference to appeal by the main appellant as per the finding above they are not eligible for exemption under Notification No.214/86 and accordingly have to discharge Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
