TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made dipped matches. They have not manufactured any packing materials. At the time of interference by the department officers at the site of the appellant they have obtained delivery challan which evidences that the goods were being sent to the principal manufacturer. Merely because the procedure adopted for job work as per Notification No.214/86-CE is not followed, the department cannot demand duty from the job worker. The Tribunal in the case of SREE RAYALASEEMA DUTCH KASSENBOUW LTD. VERSUS CCE., TIRUPATHI [ 2006 (6) TMI 505 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held that unless it is proved that the raw materials were not supplied by the principal manufacturer, the department cannot demand duty from the job worker. It is also seen that the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ob work procedures. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.3,36,934/- along with interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such order, they filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order. Hence this appeal. 2. The Ld. Consultant Sri B. Ganesan appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is only a job worker and is not a principal manufacturer. The entire raw material was supplied by the principal manufacturer M/s.Anja Lucifer Industries. The appellant has used machines and manufactured dipped match splints and cleared them to the principal manufacturer. However, as they were not aware of the job work procedure and since the principal manufacturer did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the site of the appellant they have obtained delivery challan which evidences that the goods were being sent to the principal manufacturer. Merely because the procedure adopted for job work as per Notification No.214/86-CE is not followed, the department cannot demand duty from the job worker. It is only a procedural lapse. The Tribunal in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbow Ltd. (supra) has held that unless it is proved that the raw materials were not supplied by the principal manufacturer, the department cannot demand duty from the job worker. Relevant part of the said decision reads as under : 6 . We have gone through the records of the case carefully. We are re-producing the Rule 4(5)(a) which is as follows :- RULE 4(5)(a) - Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore we set aside the demand of Rs. 16,02,337/-. In the case laws cited by the learned Advocate, it has been held that liability to pay duty rests on the raw material supplier and not on the job worker. As regards the inclusion of value of the clearances of branded goods, it has been clearly stated in the relevant Notification at Para 3A(b) that the value of clearance bearing brand name or trade name of another person who is eligible for the benefit of exemption in terms of Para 4 of the Notification, is not to be included in the aggregate value of clearances of excisable goods for home consumption in respect of the manufacturer who avails the benefit of notification. In the present case, as the raw material supplier has his own bran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
