Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Jocil Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 28 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(113)ECC391, 2006ECR391(TRI.-BANGALORE)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 78 and 79/2003 dated 11.12.2003 by which the Commissioner (A) has confirmed Order-in-Original No. 9/98 dated 18.3.1998 confirming demands and imposing penalty. The appellants were manufacturers of Soap Noodles on receipt of raw materials that is non-edible oils from the supplier of raw materials namely Calcutta Chemicals Co. Limited. The appellants during the course of manufacture, two by-products viz., Glycerine and Pitch arose out of splitting of oils supplied by the Calcutta Chemicals. The same were cleared by the appellants on payment of duty. The appellant is a job worker. The Revenue has proceeded to add the value of the by-products viz., Glycerine and Pitch in the value of the Soap Noodles manufactured and supplied by the appellants to the Calcutta Chemicals. The appellants contend that the by-products have already been discharged duty and its value cannot be added in the value of the Soap Noodles merely because the oil had been supplied by Calcutta Chemicals. Appellants have also contended that on this very issue, earlier show cause notices had been issued and hence, the demands are barred by time.
2. The learned Counsel relying on the ratio of the following rulings and Board's circulars.
a) Ujagar Prints v. UOI 1989 (93) ELT 493 (SC)
b) Hyderabad Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad
c) Suprajith Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore
d) Tara Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh
e) Rajashree Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore
f) Bhor Wavelock Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pune
g) Moti Biscuit Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur
h) Notification No. M.F. (D.R) F.No. 354/81/2000-TRU dated 30.6.2000 He also contended that the demands are barred by time, as there were earlier show cause notices issued on this very subject. Therefore, in terms of Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Nizam Sugars 2000 (123) ECR 647, larger period is not invokable in the matter and prayed for setting aside the demands both on merits and time bar. The learned Counsel also relied on the ruling rendered in the case of Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta wherein the Tribunal held that the value of scrap removed separately by payment of duty cannot be added in the assessable value of the inputs supplied to the job worker.
3. On a careful consideration, we notice that the issue is covered by the ratio of the judgments cited by the learned Counsel. The appellants have also raised the plea of time bar, as the issue had been raised by several show cause notices by the department for a period prior to this period. The copy of all the show cause notices of the earlier period involving the same issue has been produced in the paper-book. We are of the considered opinion that in terms of the cited judgments, the value of the by-products which has been cleared on payment of duty cannot be added in the value of Soap Noodles manufactured by the appellants from the inputs supplied by the Calcutta Chemicals. Furthermore, the issue had been raised by the department by earlier show cause notice No. 4/95 dated 9.7.95, therefore, the subsequent show cause notice No. 77/97 dt.15.7.97 on the same issue will be clearly barred by time in terms of the apex court judgment rendered in the case of Nizam Sugars (supra). Hence, there is no suppression of facts. Therefore, there is no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal in the light of the cited judgments.
(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)