Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Bharat Enterprises, New Delhi vs C.C.E., Delhi on 16 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(131)ELT384(TRI-DEL)
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The appellants during the period from 1.10.94 to 31.3.95 made semi-finished moulds and dies on job work basis for the principle manufacturers - M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., Gurgaon. During this period, they had cleared semi-finished moulds and dies valued at Rs.5,08,838/- to M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., Gurgaon under the challans prescribed under Rule 57F(3). The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I initiated proceedings against them and vide his Order dt. 20.10.98 he held that during the impugned period, they were engaged in the manufacture of dies falling under Chapter heading 8207. The Dy. Commissioner in his order further observed that what was being cleared by the party was semi-finished dies having the essential character of finished dies and as such by applying Rule 2 (a) of the Interpretation Rules of Excise Tariff, the same were classifiable under Heading 8207. It is further observed by the Adjudicating Authority in his order that the provisions of Rule 57F(2) do not come into the picture and the provisions of Notfn. No.214/86-CE are also not attracted in this case, since the supplier of raw material i.e., M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., did not pay duty on the finished goods i.e., dies. He has accordingly, confirmed duty demand of Rs.76,326/- on the appellants and further imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on them.
2. The appeal of the party field against the above order of the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise did not succeed and the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi vide his Order dt. 30.11.2000 dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Original Authority.
3. The present appeal and the Stay Petition are filed against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri R.C. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the respondents. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Admittedly, in this case the appellants were receiving M.S. Steel/Die Steel from M/s. Lumex Indus. Ltd., on job work basis. After converting them into semi-finished dies, they were returning the same under Rule 57F(3) challans. Therefore, the whole operation was undertaken under the provisions of this Rule by availing the Exemption under Notfn. No.214/86-CE with due approval of the concerned Central Excise Controlling Authorities. In view of these facts, therefore, it prima facie appears that if such activity was not considered to be permissible under the provisions of this Rule, then first the permission for availing the facility under the Rule should have been withdrawn and the duty, if any, should have been demanded from the principle manufacturer i.e, M/s. Lumex Indus. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by both the lower authorities, prima facie appear to be mis-placed and the appellants have accordingly made out a case in their favour. Accordingly, they are granted the waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty confirmed on them and their recovery stayed till the disposal of this appeal.
4. The matter shall come up for final disposal in its own turn.
5. (Announced and dictated in the Court).