TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notification No. 83/94-CE dt. 11.4.1994 by the job-worker, the principal manufacturer is required to file necessary declaration under the said notification with the jurisdictional authorities which has not been complied with. Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that:- The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the order recorded that even though the appellant had cleared the said goods without payment of duty no disclosure of such clearance was made by them in the relevant statutory records/ returns. Therefore, invoking of larger period of limitation and imposition of penalty by both authorities below are justified - However, while imposing penalty, both the authorities below, have not extended the benefit to discharge 25% of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that they have manufactured excisable goods on job work basis for their customer M/s. Flo-rite Engineering Corporation and entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 83/94-CE dt. 11.4.1994, being an SSI Unit. It is his contention that merely because the supplier of the raw material has not filed the proper declaration with the jurisdictional authorities concerned, the benefit of the said Notification No. 83/94-CE dt. 11.4.1994 cannot be denied to the appellant. Further, he submits that since there was no suppression of fact and mis-declaration, hence, the extended period of limitation cannot be applicable. In support, the Ld. Advocate referred the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Inar Prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and perused the records. 6. The undisputed facts are that the appellant manufactured and cleared excisable goods falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on job work basis, without payment of duty. The appellant had claimed benefit of the exemption notification No. 83/94-CE dt. 11.4.1994. It is the contention of the appellant that s per the condition of the said Notification that the principal manufacturer though required, but had not filed necessary declaration with their jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, and such procedural infraction, cannot disentitle the benefit of exemption notification No. 83/94-CE dt. 11.4.1994 to the appellant. 7. We do not find merit in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
