9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein is a job worker for M/s Ravi Organics Ltd (ROL), Hyderabad and has manufactured excisable goods out of raw material supplied by ROL and after processing, returned the same to ROL. The appellant's activities amount to manufacture and there is no dispute on this point. However, since they are manufacturing the goods on job work they are entitled to benefit of exemption notification 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. This exemption notification exempts goods manufactured by a job worker in his factory and (a) used in or in relation to manufacture of final products by the main manufacturer or (b) cleared as such from the factory of main manufacturer on payment of duty for home consumption or without payment of duty of export under bond or without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory of manufacture at all and no manufacturing activity takes place from their premises. It is the case of the department that since ROL does not have a factory of manufacture he cannot or could not have used the goods cleared by appellant in manufacture of final products. Further, even if they removed the goods on payment of duty as such, such removal cannot be from the factory of ROL because there is no factory. Therefore, the appellant herein was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification at all which contemplates either use of the material for further manufacture of goods or clearance for home consumption or for export from the factory of the main manufacturer. ROL, having no factory at all, was in no position to fulfil t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authority was rejected. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the case of Bharat Industries [2008 (227) ELT 281 (Tri-Mumbai)] it has been held that if supplier of raw materials has given an undertaking that they will abide by the provisions to notification 214/86-CE whether the goods cleared by them were put to use or not is not the concern of the appellant. Duty demand, if any, on such ground for violation of notification 214/86 would arise only on the supplier of raw material and not on appellant. He would submit that their case is squarely covered by this order of the Tribunal and the ratio applies in full force to their case. He would further submit that the main manufacturer ROL has not even b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for home consumption on payment of duty or for export. The basis for allegation is that the supplier ROL has no factory on their own as per the statement before Commercial Tax department etc. There is no allegation that ROL have not fulfilled responsibilities given in their undertaking or that there is any loss of revenue on that count. When the Central Excise department themselves have given registration has manufacturers to ROL, and after citing such registration number, issued an undertaking to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of appellant. The appellant could not have been expected to take any further precautions to ensure that notification 214/86 has been correctly availed. There is also no allegation whatsoever that there is any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
