Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S R.P Foundary Pvt. Ltd., Mandi ... vs Cce, Chandigarh on 25 October, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 COURT NO.1 Appeal No.E/60120/2016- (SM) (Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CHD-EXCUS-001-APP-0011-16-17 dated 08/04/2016 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh) Date of Hearing/Decision: 25.10.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes M/s R.P Foundary Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh Appellant Vs. CCE, Chandigarh Respondent
Appearance Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. Satyapal, A.R.- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61551/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty by denying the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is job worker and undertaking the job work under Notification No. 214/86-CE and clearing the goods without payment of duty as per Notification No. 214/86-CE. The principal manufacturer has to file undertaking with the jurisdiction officer of the job worker that on the job work goods, the principal manufacture will discharge the duty. The principal manufacturer instead of filing the undertaking before the Assistant Commissioner of the Job Worker filed the same before Assistant Commissioner of its jurisdiction. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny the benefit of Notification No. 214/86. Consequently, to demand the duty along with interest and to impose penalty on the appellant. The matter was adjudicated, benefit of notification was denied and the duty was demanded along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a bona-fide mistake of the principal manufacturer while filing the undertaking before the Jurisdiction Officer instead of the Assistant Commissioner of Range of the job worker/Appellant. Later on, the said mistake was also rectified by filing undertaking before the Assistant Commissioner to the job worker but the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. Further, he submits that in their own case for the earlier period on the same ground, the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand.
3. Considering the fact the principal manufacture filed the undertaking before the Assistant Commissioner of the Range of the appellant and discharge the duty on the job worked goods, therefore, the proceedings against the appellant is not sustainable.
4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submits that as the condition of Notification 214/86-CE has been contravened, therefore, the duty is rightly demanded in the light of the decision in the case of International Engg. & MFG. Services p. Ltd. reported in 2001 (135) ELT 551 (Tri. Del.).
5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
6. I find that in this case the principal manufacture has filed declaration before the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction of the factory of the job worker and the said declaration have been accepted by the said Assistant Commissioner. In that circumstances, the Condition of the notification has been complied with by the principal manufacture. In that circumstances, the proceedings against the appellant are not warranted. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to benefit of notification no. 214/86-CE and the duty is not payable by the appellant.
With these terms, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Ashok Jindal
Member Judicial
rt
1 E/60120/2016
M/s R.P Foundary Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I