9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, these are taken together for decision. Appeal Nos. E/2604-2607/2009 are arising out of Order-in-Original No. 11-12/COMMR./M-II/2009 dated 28.04.2009 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-II. Appeal Nos. E/1051-1054/2011 are arising out of Order-in-Original No. 16/COMM./M-II/2010 dated 11.01.2011 passed by Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-II. The appellant in Appeal Nos. E/2604/2009 & E/1051/2011 is M/s Indian Wood Products Company Ltd. and the remaining appellants are associated with the said manufacturer. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the M/s Indian Wood Products Company Ltd. (hereinafter shall be referred as main appellant for the purpose of this order) was engaged in the manufacture of Indian Kath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls Private Ltd. The appellants were therefore, issued with totally 4 show cause notices. Through show cause notice dated 30.05.2008 the main appellant were called upon to show cause as to how Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 19,78,93,246/- for the period from May, 2003 to November, 2007 should not be demanded from them under the provisions of proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944. There were proposals to impose penalty on Shri Krishna Kumar Mohta, Shri Krishna Kumar Damani and Shri N.H. Agarwal under the provision of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Similar show cause notice was issued on 24.12.2008 covering the period from December, 2007 to August, 2008. Central Excise Duty demanded through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty liability cannot be fasten on them since they have not given any undertaking under Notification No. 214/1986-CE taking responsibility of payment of Central Excise Duty on the goods manufactured by so called job worker. As an alternative argument they also submitted that quantification of duty demand was not correct and also that the classification of catechin was also not correct. They also submitted that catechin if subjected to duty was eligible to avail Cenvat Credit of CVD paid at the time of importation of gambier extract and, therefore, by discounting said credit and treating the price as cum duty price the demand would get neutralized. They further, contended that show cause notice dated 30.05.2008 was hit by limitation. The ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 lakhs on Shri N.H. Agarwal. The other two show cause notices dated 04.09.2009 and 16.06.2010 were adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.01.2011. The main appellant and other appellants made similar submissions before the Original Authority. The Original Authority gave similar finding in respect of liability to pay duty on the main appellant. Further, the Original Authority has decided on the valuation aspect and reduced the demand. Through the said Order-in-Original dated 11.01.2011 Central Excide duty confirmed was Rs. 2,40,99,193/-. Further, equal penalty was imposed. The Original Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each on Shri Krishna Kumar Mohta and Shri Krishna Kumar Damani under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by no stretch of imagination use of catechin in the manufacture of Indian Katha can be treated as captive consumption and, therefore, the question of eligibility of main appellant for the benefit of Notification No. 67/1995 does not arise. He has further submitted that the Original Authority has fastened the duty liability on the main appellant on two grounds. One ground is Rule 12A of Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 214/1986-CE and another ground was said CBEC Circular No. 56/56/1994-CX dated 14.09.1994. He has submitted that Central Excise Act has fastened the liability on the manufacturer and the liability fastened by the Act cannot be changed by any provision of Rule made thereunder. Further, he has submitted that Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... working as hired labourers of the said Board and the said agreement between the Board and contractors was on principal to principal basis and, therefore, contractors were to be treated as manufacturer. It was also stated in the said Circular that said decision of this Tribunal was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel has submitted that through various contracts such as entered on 26 February, 1998 and 03 July, 2003 between the main appellant and Bareilly Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., the contract was for manufacture on principal to principal basis and by no stretch of imagination a registered private limited company can be considered to be equal to hired labourers and, therefore, he submitted that as clarified CBEC in the said Cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
