TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over the liability, so the appellant is liable to pay the duty liability of ₹ 40,32,222/-. This ground is rejected. Demand - goods sent for job worker - Held that: - In the instant case, the principal has not taken the liability to pay the duty demand so the duty demand lies with the job worker - if the duty demand in the instant case to be paid by job worker and not by the Principal appellant. Hence, the duty demand of ₹ 2,83,421/- is deleted. Clandestine removal - it was alleged that only Challans and internal gate passes were prepared before actually clearing the goods under the Central Excise invoices - Held that: - demand was raised solely on the basis of the statement of Sh. R. B. Shah, Authorized Signatory who, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws. The remaining yarn of 14,123 Kgs was released on the redemption fine of ₹ 10,00,000/- + ₹ 2,00,000/- on remanded, total ₹ 12,00,000/-. 3. Ld. Counsel assailed the levy of the redemption fine. 4. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that goods were unfinished, unpacked and were at the factory floor. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that the Tribunal in the case of Ambey Laboratories vs CCE 2017 (6) GSTL 175 (Del) observed that (v) Seizure at factory At the time of search of the factory by the Departmental officers on 12-9-2006, the officers noticed that a part of the production was not accounted in the statutory records. Such accounted goods totally valued at ₹ 4,17, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the appellant is a job worker. Primary duty payment liability lies with the job worker unless the principal manufacturer had taken over the liability. In the present case, the principal had not taken over the liability, so the appellant is liable to pay the duty liability of ₹ 40,32,222/-. This ground is rejected. 9. Next grievance of the appellant is pertaining to the duty demand of ₹ 2,83,421/- on the ground of the goods sent for job worker. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the transaction in question were of job work and 57F(3) Challans were also issued by the appellant company for sending the concerned input to job workers from whom the materials were also r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cne has been brought to the notice of the Bench. Hence, this demand is hereby sustained. This ground is dismissed. 12. Similarly, another grievance is for ₹ 2,14,853/-. In this case also the internal gate passes No. 1603 and 1604 were used for the removal of goods from the factory premises. Goods were removed from the factory without payment of duty through the gate passes. When it is so, then we decline to interfere with the impugned order. The said demand is also confirmed. This ground is dismissed. 13. The last grievance of the appellant is pertaining to demand of ₹ 3,18,290/-. The demand was raised for the shortage of yarn. 14. By considering the rival submissions, it appears that no worksheet showing how shortage w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
