9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant is engaged in manufacture of parts of Motor Vehicle & Speedometer, parts of Power-Driven Pumps, parts of Textile Machinery & parts of Press Tools. During the course of verification of the accounts of the appellant, it was found that apart from sale of their own manufactured products, they also sold goods which were manufactured by them on Job-work basis. In respect of such sales materials have been supplied by the principals and after completion of the works the same are sold to the principals by charging only labour bills. With the introduction of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (CEV Rules), the job work valuation has to be done as prescribed thereunder. The present case falls under the third category of the Rule ibid as the goods received from the job workers are further used in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles, pumps, machineries etc and valuation has to be done as per Rule 6 of CEV Rules. Further, it was also found that neither the appellant nor the principals have followed the procedures prescribed for availing exemption under Notification No. 214/86 CE dated 25.03.1986. In as much as the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther there is no word about the classification of goods. iv. that the learned appellate authority simply held that the adjudicating authority had held that it is manufacturing of parts of Motor Vehicle & speedometer parts, Parts of PD pumps, parts of textile machinery etc. When the appellant has raised a specific ground that the activity doesn't amount to manufacture, appellate authority ought to have rendered his independent findings. In this case there is no evidence brought on record by the department to say that the job work activity amounts to manufacture. It is a settled law that the onus is on the department to demand duty on the ground that the activity amounts to manufacture, which was not discharged in this case. v. that without addressing the main issue,i.e., whether job work activity carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture or not, both the authorities simply held that provisions of Rule 10(A) read with Rule of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules. 2000 will apply and valuation has to be in accordance with this Rule 6 vi. that, the activity of cutting, bending, pressing etc doesn't amount manufacture as he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2007 (218) ELT 405 (Tri.Chennai) c) Tufail Ahmed Vs. Collector of Central Excise-1992 (62) ELT 745 (Tribunal LB) d) Delhi Paper Products Co. Vs. Collector of C Ex., New Delhi-2000 (125) ELT 661 (Tribunal) This decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court and reported in 2001 (127) ELT A 107 SC (e) Commr of C.Ex, Jaipur-II Vs Ranjan Polyster Ltd -2016 (344) 257 viii. that, non filing of declaration is only a procedural issue for which substantial benefit cannot be denied as held by the Apex Court in the Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs deputy commissioner 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC). ix. that, in the absence of any suppression with an intent to evade payment of duty extended period cannot be invoked and also equal penalty cannot be imposed on them. The appellate authority has not rendered any reason for upholding the imposition of equal penalty. Hence the impugned order is a non speaking order. x. that, without prejudice, in the alternate, it is submitted that they have paid the disputed duty amount of Rs.3,11,712/- with interest of Rs.2,00,072/- and 25% penalty of Rs.77,928/- [Total Rs.5,89,712/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red dutiable goods. Rather, we note that the Adjudicating Authority as well as the appellate authority, while rendering a finding stating that the present case falls under the third category of Rule 10A of the CEV Rules, tacitly concede that the goods received from the job workers (i.e. the appellant) are further used in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles, pumps, machineries etc., thus lending credence to the appellant's aforesaid rebuttal of the allegations in the show cause notice, namely, that the processed goods are only in the semi-finished stage and the same cannot be marketed as such and that on receipt of semi- finished goods, the customer subjected them into further process and assembled in their final product and cleared on payment of duty. We note that the Honourable High Court of Bombay in the case of Annapurna Engineering Corpn v ACCE, Div-I Nagpur, 2011 (22) STR 577 (Bom) has held that failure to pass a reasoned order resulted in miscarriage of justice. While we would have ordinarily remitted the matter back for denovo adjudication, given the efflux of time of nearly a decade and the quantum of revenue involved, we think that this is a fit case where the indol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplier) on payment of duty for home consumption. The demand of duty is consequential to non-fulfillment of this condition. The appellants have resisted the demand of duty on the ground that it was for the raw material-supplier to comply with the said condition. It is their further case that the department could have recovered duty on the subject goods from M/s. Vijay Detergent Products (P) Ltd. on the ground of non-fulfillment of the said condition. We find that the Tribunal's decision in Aggarwal Rolling Mills (supra) supports this case of the appellants. No binding decision to the contrary was cited by the DR. 4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed." (emphasis supplied). 9. A similar view is seen stated in the decision of this Tribunal in Salem Weld Mesh v CCE, Salem, 2007 (218) ELT 405 (Tri-Chennai), wherein it was held that " In the circumstances, it would be grossly unjust to deny the benefit of the Notification to the appellants on the ground of non-production of poultry farmer's undertaking to the proper officer having jurisdiction over the appellant's factory. Exemption from payment of duty, granted by the Central Government under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this confirms that they were under bona fide belief due to several Tribunal decisions held in favour of the appellants. Therefore, it is established that the non-levy of duty was not due to any wilful suppression or with any intention to evade payment of duty. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textile Ltd. v. CCE (supra) clearly ruled that mere nonpayment of duty is not equivalent to collusion or wilful suppression of facts and in order to invoke extended period specific and explicit allegation must be proved by the Revenue. In the present case, the adjudicating authority has not brought out any such allegation of suppression of facts.". Therefore, we find that even otherwise the demand is substantially also barred by limitation. 12. In view of our discussions above and adhering to the ratio of the aforecited decisions, we hold that the impugned order in appeal upholding the impugned order in original confirming the demand of duty along with appropriate interest as well as imposing penalty cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 13. The Appeal is allowed, with consequential relief in law, if any. ( Order pronounced in open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
