Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (2) TMI 1093

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uisite declaration under Notification 214/86-CE. The declaration filed by the principal manufacturer under Notification 214/86-CE is not a procedural kind of declaration but a substantial declaration in so far as it transfers duty liability from the job worker to the principal manufacturer. In these circumstances, it is obvious that without declaration being filed by M/s GMIL duty liability would remain with the job worker. In these circumstances, payment of duty by the job worker cannot be challenged. CENVAT Credit - supplementary invoices - Rule 9(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- There is no allegation of suppression of fact, wilful misstatement, fraud etc., in the SCN - in absence of any charge of suppression, mis-declaration e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .01.2007 to March 2008, the unit was working under provision of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and had not raised any excise invoice under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The unit had removed the goods on completion of job work without payment of duty under cover of challan. The appellant had filed an intimation to the Superintendent of Central Excise on 19.01.2007 informing that they were undertaking job work under notification 214/86 dated 25.03.1986. Consequently, w.e.f. 19.01.2007 M/s GMIL started supplying inputs under provision of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 to the appellant under cover of challan without payment of duty and the appellant in turn return the resultant goods after undertaking job work (assem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 005-2006 and 2006-2007 M/s DASL was manufacturing and supplying such goods to M/s GMIL on payment of duty. However, w.e.f 18.01.2007, M/s DASL started receiving inputs from M/s GMIL under provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and M/s DASL started clearing the goods without payment of duty availing benefit of Notification 214/86-CE. Ld. Counsel pointed out that M/s GMIL had not filed any declaration relating to Notification 214/86-CE and consequently, they discharged the duty liability on the clearances affected from 18.01.2007 onwards, vide the supplementary invoices dated 01.02.2008, 29.02.2008 and 31.03.2008. He pointed out that they paid duty by arriving at value on the basis of material cost and labour cost as per the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out that in the instant case M/s GMIL had not fulfilled their part of their obligation under Notification 214/86-CE, consequently, the liability for payment of duty was still with M/s DASL. As a result they recognized the said liability and paid the differential duty. It is seen that the ground of appeal do not deny the fact that M/s GMIL had not filed the requisite declaration under Notification 214/86-CE. The declaration filed by the principal manufacturer under Notification 214/86-CE is not a procedural kind of declaration but a substantial declaration in so far as it transfers duty liability from the job worker to the principal manufacturer. In these circumstances, it is obvious that without declaration being filed by M/s GMIL duty lia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ary invoices for payment of duty prior to the audit conducted by Revenue, although the actual duty payment was done at the time of audit. Consequently, in para 14.1, he has also observed that there is no allegation of suppression of fact, wilful misstatement, fraud etc., in the SCN and thus clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 cannot be invoked. 5. We find substantial force in the argument of the Commissioner and consequently hold that in absence of any charge of suppression, mis-declaration etc. provisions of rule 9(1)(b) cannot be invoked. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue and the same are dismissed. (Pronounced in the open court on 15.02.2019) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates