9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material without valid documents and seized the goods with the vehicle. On completion of enquiry, it was found that they have manufactured these machine made dipped splints from the raw materials supplied by M/s.Anja Lucifer Industries. Show cause notice dt. 11.6.2012 was issued to the appellant alleging that they have cleared excisable goods of machine made dipped splints without payment of Central Excise duty and without following the job 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises for consideration is whether the demand, interest and penalties imposed against the appellant is legal and proper. 6. From the facts narrated in the impugned order, it can be seen that the appellant was supplied with raw materials by another manufacturer. The appellant is only engaged in manufacture of machine 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. It is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, test, repair, reconditioning or any other purpose; and the goods are received back in the factory within 180 days from the job worker. It is very clear that the above rule does not contemplate payment of duty by the job worker. The duty liability is squarely on the shoulders of the raw material supplier. Therefore, the demand of duty for the reason that raw material supplier has not followed the provision of Notification No. 214/86 is not correct. 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 clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
