9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of CRGO Electrical Steel and also undertake the processing of raw material received from their customers. Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, the appellant No. 2 is the authorized signatory of M/s MEIPL. M/s Aniketa Krishna International, Jaipur, appellant No. 3 is a 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacture of CRGO Electrical Steel lamination/ CRGO Core Assembly, falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant No. 3 had imported consignment of CRGO Steel without payment of customs duty under Notification No. 52/2003-CUS., dated 31/03/2003 for use in the manufacture of CRGO Electrical Steel Lamination/CRGO Core Assembly. Out of total quantity of the imported goods, the appellant No. 3 sent 11,975 kgs of CRGO Ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 27/01/2012, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 15/07/2013 has upheld the adjudged demand confirmed against the appellants. Hence, these appeals were filed before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that 6744 Kg of coils were sent for lamination by the job worker and the final product of 6145.800 Kgs were sold on payment of duty of Rs. 91155/- vide invoice dated 03/11/2009. She further submitted that scrap of 598.200 Kg were also sold by appellant No. 1on payment of duty of Rs. 10,716/- vide invoice dated 12/11/2009. Thus, she submitted that duty liabilities along with penalty cannot be confirmed against the appellants. She further submitted that the appellant No. 3 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 947 dated 12/11/2009. However, I find that the authorities below have not taken cognigence of such letter addressed by the Appellant No. 1 to the Jurisdictional Reign Superintendent. Since adequate evidence regarding the job work activity and payment of duty on the final product were produced by the appellant No. 1, the same cannot be discarded and adjudged demands cannot be confirmed against it. Thus, the impugned order, confirming the duty liability and imposing penalties against the appellant No. 1 is set aside. Since there is no clandestine removal of goods from the factory of the appellant No. 1, personal penalty imposed on the appellant No. 2 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be sustained. 8. I find that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
