TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion - HELD THAT:- In the present case the appellant admittedly received the raw material under the cover of Annexure-II Challans, which also indicates the supply of raw material in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. All the transactions were duly recorded by the principal manufacturer as well as the appellant. Therefore, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable on the ground of time bar also. Since the adjudicating authority has not carried out any verification as regard payment of excise duty by the principal manufacturer and also with respect to the fact of revenue neutrality, the matter needs to go back - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/ 356 - 357, 414/2011 - Final Order No. A/10333-10335/2020 - Dated:- 29-1-2020 - MR. RAMESH NAIR MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri. Willingdon Christian, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. S. N. Gohil, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the job work of activity of powder coating on metal components. The metal components are supplied by their principles on which they are doing powder coating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the cover of Annexure-II Challans, mentioning under rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004. The said documents clearly show that the Principal Manufacturers are paying Excise Duty. He submits that there is no condition in the notification for providing the proof of payment of duty by the Principal Manufacturers. He submits that as per the notification only it is to be established that the duty on final product is payable by the raw material suppliers. The Challan under rule 4 (5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is more than sufficient to establish that the final product in which the job work goods is used, the Excise Duty is payable. Moreover, about 12 major principal manufacturers had given certificates about actual payment of duty on their final products. Nothing, more than that is required to establish that on the final product of the Principal manufacturer Excise duty is payable. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the following judgments: 2018 (364) ELT 945 ( Tri.- LB) Thermax Babcocl Wilcox Ltd. Vs. CCE 1997 (93) ELT 615 (T) Aggrwal Rolling Mills Vs. CCE 2005 (189) ELT 126 (T) Trico Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2014 (307) ELT 528 (T) Vanda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order and established that the appellant have contravened the condition of Notification No. 8/2005-ST, the demand was rightly confirmed. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the main issue is revolving around the eligibility of exemption notification No. 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 which is reproduced below. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service of production of goods on behalf of the client referred in sub-clause (v) of clause (19) of section 65 of the said Finance Act, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act : Provided that the said exemption shall apply only in cases where such goods are produced using raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by the client and goods so produced are returned back to the said client for use in or in relation to manufacture of any other goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bles/ raw materials were not supplied by the client of the assessee and because of that the job worker is not illegible for exemption notification No. 8/2005-ST, the whole purpose of the notification will be defeated as in majority of cases a small part of the consumables raw materials are used for carrying out any job work. Therefore, we are of the clear view that only because the Powder Coating Chemicals were not supplied by the Principal Manufacturers, the benefit of notification cannot be denied. As regard the issue that the appellant have not produced the proof of payment of excise duty on the final product by the Principal Manufacturer, we find that since the appellant have received metal components or job work under the cover of Annexure-II Challans indicating rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that itself is evidence that the Principal Manufacturers are working under Central Excise and discharging the excise duty. It is also observed that in respect of major clients, the appellant have obtained certificates regarding discharging the excise duty. However, the adjudicating authority has discarded the same that it does not give any proof of payment of duty. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
