Job work - Denial of benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. thereby demanding duty.

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3405

Case-R.P. FOUNDARY PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

Citation-2016 (342) E.L.T. 596 (Tri. - Chan.)

Brief Facts-The appellant is job worker and undertaking the job work under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and clearing the goods without payment of duty as per Notification No. 214/86-C.E. The principal manufacturer has to file undertaking with the jurisdictional officer of the job worker that on the job work goods, the principal manufacturer 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-C.E. 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 tribunal.

Appellant’s Contention-the appellant submits that it is a bona fide mistake of the principal manufacturer while filing the undertaking before the Jurisdictional 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.Considering the fact the principal manufacturer 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.

Respondent’s Contention-the ld. AR submits that as the condition of Notification 214/86-C.E. 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)E.L.T.551 (Tri.-Del.).

Reasoning Of Judgement-Tribunal find that in this case the principal manufacturer 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 manufacturer. In that circumstances, the proceedings against the appellant are not warranted. Therefore, tribunal hold that the appellant is entitled to benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and the duty is not payable by the appellant.

Decision-APPEAL ALLOWED

Comment-The analogy of the case is that since the principal manufacturer has rectified his mistake of filing the declaration before the assistant commissioner of its own jurisdiction instead that of factory of the job worker and thus the appellant is entitled to benefit of notification no. 214/86 –C.E. and the duty is not payable by the appellant.
Prepared By-ARUNDHATI BAJPAI

Comments

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3405

Post a Comment

Query