TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity to pay Central Excise Duty on catechins manufactured by Bareilly Chemicals Pvt. Ltd was not on M/s Indian Wood Products Company Ltd. - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/MISC/51162-51164 & 51250/2015, E/2604-2607/2009 & 1051-1054/2011-EX [ DB ] - Final Order Nos.70281-70288/2018 - Dated:- 2-11-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Kapil Vaish (CA) for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr.) AR Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar Above stated eight appeals are having common issue where the manufacturer of goods is same and, therefore, 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24.12.2008 covering the period from December, 2007 to August, 2008. Central Excise Duty demanded through the said show cause notice dated 24.12.2008 from main appellant was ₹ 4,23,36,214/-. Said two show cause notices were adjudicated through said Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2009. Third show cause notice was issued on 04.09.2009. Allegations in the said show cause notice were same. Through the said show cause notice main appellant was called upon to show cause as to how Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 3,48,79,994/- should not be demanded from them under the same provision. The said show cause notice dated 04.09.2009 covered the period from September, 2008 to June, 2009. Further, show cause notice dated 16.06.2010 was issued covering period from July, 2009 to March, 2010 wherein Central Excise Duty demanded was ₹ 3,51,96,410/-. The said show cause notices dated 04.09.2009 and 16.06.2010 were adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.01.2011. 3. The main appellant submitted their defence reply dated 03.01.2009 before the Original Authority. The main appellant contended before the Original Authority that there was no duty demanded in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the manufacturer of catechins. The Original Authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 24,02,29,460/- and imposed equal penalty on main appellant. He imposed penalty of ₹ 1 crore each on Shri Krishna Kumar Mohta and Shri Krishna Kumar Damani and further imposed penalty of ₹ 20 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 ₹ 2,40,99,193/-. Further, equal penalty was imposed. The Original Authority imposed penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs each on Shri Krishna Kumar Mohta and Shri Krishna Kumar Damani under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further Shri N.H. Agarwal was imposed with a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs. Aggrieved by the said orders appellants are before this Tribunal. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 214/1986-CE. The main appellant had not taken any responsibility of paying Central Excise Duty on the goods manufactured by Bareilly Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Further he also submitted that main appellant did not opt to file any such declaration under Notification No. 214/1986-CE for the reason that such declaration was to be filed by principal manufacturer only if the goods manufactured by the principal manufacturer were dutiable. It is admitted fact that the goods manufactured by the main appellant i.e. Indian Katha were attracting nil rate of duty. Therefore, the question of opting to file any declaration under Notification No. 214/1986-CE did not arise in the circumstances of the case. In respect of said CBEC Circular dated 14.09.2019 which is extracted in Para 31.3 of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2009 states that this Tribunal s Special Bench, New Delhi, in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. CCE reported at 1990 (47) ELT 62. Tribunal has held in the said case that since the Kerala State Electricity Board used to get PSC/PCC and RCC poles produced through contractors and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement contractors were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
