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

2008 (9) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t and Shri A. K. Srivastava, Member (T) Ms. Deepali Kamble, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Hitesh Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per Jyoti Balasundaranl, Vice-President]. - The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to information that M/s. Jai Timber Company had procured and stored excisable goods viz. Veneer under the guise of job work; officers of Central Excise visited their factory, carried out stock verification, and found Veneer placed in 51 boxes received from Karnataka State Veneer Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KSVL') lying in the said premises [the assessee had sent timber/flinches to KSVL for conversion into Veneer which were received back by the assessee on 4-11-1999 under the provisions of Rule .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o not manufacturers of Veneers and thereby benefit of Notification 8/99 read with Notifications 83/94 and 84/94 was not available to them. On the above basis show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of Rs. 1,76,000/- on 51 boxes of Veneer sheets, together with interest under Section 11AB and penal action under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and Section 11AC of the Act. The notice also proposed confiscation of the seized goods. The notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner confirming duty demand with interest, imposing penalty amount equal to duty on Jai Timber Company under Section 11AC, imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q, imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the proprietor of Jai Timber Company under Rule .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... worker - (a) that the specified goods received from the job worker shall be used in the factory of such supplier in or in relation to the manufacture of specified goods which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the aforesaid notification; and (b) that in the event of his failure to do so, he undertakes to pay excise duty, if any, payable on such goods, but for the exemption contained in this notification, as if such goods were manufactured by the said supplier and sold on his own account: Provided that the waste or bye-product, if any, generated during the process of such job work shall also be exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviablethereon under the said Schedule if - (i) such waste .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such specified goods, from the whole of the duty of excise leviabie thereon, which is specified in the said Schedule, subject to the condition that the supplier of the raw materials, or semi-finished goods gives an undertaking to the proper officer having jurisdiction over the factory of the supplier - (a) that the specified goods on return shall be used in the factory of the said supplier in or in relation to the manufacture of specified goods which are exempted from the whole or part of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the aforesaid notification; and (b) that in the event of his failure to do so, he undertakes to pay excise duty, if any, payable on such goods, but for the exemption contained in this notification. Explanat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the ratio of the Tribunal's order in Kanohar Electricals Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 129, upholding duty demand confirmed against the raw material supplier on the ground of violation of the condition of Notification 214/86 and rejecting the plea that duty should have been demanded from the job worker. We, therefore, uphold the duty demand and imposition of penalty on Jai Timber Company and reject appeal No. E/604/2002. The penalty imposed on Shri Purushottambhai J. Patel, proprietor of Jai Timber Company, is set aside as proprietary concern and proprietor are one and the same in the eye of law and, therefore, separate penalty cannot be imposed on both. 4. Learned Counsel seeks permission to .....

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