Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. And Unicast ... vs Cce on 13 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(86)ECC303, 2003(159)ELT599(TRI-CHENNAI)
JUDGMENT Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. The appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 104 & 105/2000 (CBE) (GVN) both dated 8.11.2000 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the duty paid by M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd., the principal/primary manufacturer who paid the duty on the goods manufactured by the job worker on the ground that it is the job worker who has to discharge the duty and this discharge by the primary manufacturer or principal manufacturer cannot be treated as duty paid.
2. Learned Chartered Accountant, Shri P.C. Anand appearing on behalf of both the appellants submits that the appellants were manufacturers of iron casting falling under chapter sub-heading 7325.10. Both the units belong to the same group and are situated adjacent to each other. M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. (the primary manufacturer) sent the raw materials to the second unit, namely, M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 57F (2) challan procedure and got the goods manufactured from the job worker and the duty was paid by the primary manufacturer on the goods manufactured by the job worker, namely, M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
3. The Additional Commissioner in his Orders-in-Original No. 23/99 (A.D.C.) both dated 31.12.99 has confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 9,62,457 on the appellant, M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and duty of Rs. 93,038 on the other appellant M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that since the goods have been manufactured by the job worker, the job worker should have paid the duty themselves. The duty paid by the primary manufacturer was not accepted by him. He also imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, respectively, on the appellants.
4. Ld. Chartered Accountant submits that the department also confirmed the duty as has been paid on the goods which were manufactured by the job worker. Ld. Chartered Accountant also invited our attention to para-8 of the comments sent by the department which were placed on record vide letter dated 28.5.2002 of the Asst. Commissioner (Appeals) addressed to SDR in which it has been confirmed that the duty has been paid by M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd., amounting to a total of Rs. 9,76,064 for the goods which were manufactured by M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd., out of inputs intended for M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd.
5. Ld. DR, Shri C. Mani invited our attention to the comments furnished by the department which have been received by them vide letter dated 28.5.2002 of the AC (Appeals) that M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. have cleared their modvatable inputs to M/s. UCA for manufacture of goods without following the procedures of Rule 57F (3)/57F (4) and have received the final products without any document. They have also taken modvat credit on inputs which were not utilised in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products and thereby they have contravened the provisions of Rules 52A, 57A and 57F of CER, 1944. He, further, submitted that the total duty of Rs. 9,76,064, for the disputed period from 17.8.96 to 7.1.97, has been paid by M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd., the principal manufacturer for the goods which were manufactured by M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd., the job worker out of inputs intended for M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. But there is no provision in the Central Excise Rules for such type of payment of duty, when the assessee has failed to follow certain procedures. Therefore, it has to be construed that M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd., the job manufacturer have not paid any duty for the goods which were manufactured out of inputs intended for M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and have noted that the total duty of Rs. 9,76,064 and of Rs. 93,038 has been paid by M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. in respect of goods which were manufactured by their job worker, namely, M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Since the duty has been paid which is not in dispute, we do not find any ground to sustain the impugned orders. The procedural violations as alleged thereof is purely technical, venial in nature and are not substantive. Therefore, no penalty also can be imposed on the appellants for violation of such technical violations. We, therefore, allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned orders, with consequential relief, if any. Ordered accordingly.