Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)
Spray King Agro Euipment Pvt Ltd vs Rajkot on 5 May, 2022 cites

Ece Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... on 27 March, 2003

Heard both sides and perused the case records. The first issue which is required to be deliberated upon whether appellant is required to discharge duty liability on certain intermediate goods which come into existence in their factory premises which are not "specified goods" under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3- 2003 as amended by Notification No. 8/2006-C.E., dated 1-3- 2006. It is observed from Sr. No. (xxiv) of annexure to Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 and Sr. No. (xxxii) to (xxiv) of annexure to Notification No. 8/2006-C.E., dated 1-3- 2006 that certain categories of copper articles are not eligible to small scale exemption. The opening paragraph of the Notification Nos. 83/1994-C.E. and 84/1994-C.E. both dated 11-4-1994 grants exemption to the job worker with respect to specified goods of small-scale exemption notification, sent back to the raw material suppliers who are availing SSI exemption. Certain procedures have been prescribed by which the raw material suppliers have to give an undertaking that the specified goods will be returned back to their premises and such specified goods received from the job worker will be used in the factory of such suppliers in or in relation to the manufacture of specified goods which are exempted under small scale exemption notification. The argument taken by the appellant that for any duty liability on the intermediate goods that come into the existence in appellant‟s factory, lies with the raw material supplier is not correct because as per the wording of the undertakings only duty liability with respect to the finished specified goods is required to bedischarged by the raw material suppliers. The duty liability onthe manufactured goods, which come into existence and arecaptively consumed for which exemption is not available underSSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E., is required to discharged by theappellant/job worker. This view has already been upheld by the CESTAT - Delhi in the case of Super Polyfabriks Ltd. v. 12 | P a g e CCE,Chandigarh (supra). Paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 8 of the judgmentare relevant and are reproduced below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

M/S. Thermax Babcock &Amp; Wilcox Ltd. vs Cce Pune I on 27 November, 2018

5.4 Without prejudice, as regard the said issue we also find that even if the benefit of job-work notification denied to the Appellant, the duty liability rests on the job worker. Therefore, the show cause notice demanding duty from the Appellant on the goods manufactured by the Job-worker cannot be sustained. Once the Revenue took a view that the inputs could not have been sent to a job worker claiming the Job-work exemption Notifications and the process undertaken by the job worker amounted to manufacture and resulted in products namely, Brass Casted Rods, the duty liability would fall on the manufacturer who is a job worker in this case and not on the appellant. Since duty demand has been made on Brass Casted Rods and the appellant is not a manufacturer of the same, the demand is not sustainable and accordingly, the impugned order demanding duty from appellant is legally not correct. We find that the larger bench of Hon'ble CESTAT in the matter of M/s Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. Pune -I, reported at 2018(364) ELT 945 (Tri. -LB) held that:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next