VINOD PROCESSORS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under: -

(2.) THE appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application No. E/ROA/76/11 -Ex. (BR) for restoration of the appeal on the ground that while the Committee on Disputes has not taken any decision, the requirement of seeking permission from High Powered Committee on Disputes for filing appeal before the Tribunal or any other court has been done away with by the Apex Court vide judgment in the Electronics Corporation Ltd. v. CCE reported in, 2011 (3) SCC 404 :, 2011 (265) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) :, 2011 (21) S.T.R. 593 (S.C.). The Tribunal vide Order No. 133/2012 -BR, dated 7 -2 -2012 recalled the final order dated 24 -12 -1999 and restored the appeal to its original number. Accordingly the appeal was heard afresh on merits.

(3.) SHRI M.S. Negi, ld. DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and emphasized that the during the period of dispute, the single ply spun yam manufactured by manufacturer was liable to duty even if captively consumed for doubling, that the appellant are not covered by Notification No. 214/86 -C.E., as the goods of Chapters 54 and 55 are not covered in Col. 2 of the Table annexed to the notification and that there is nothing in the show cause notice issued to M/s. Super Syncotex from which it would appear that the show cause notice is for demand of duty in respect of the yarn received by them from the appellant and that no evidence has been provided by the appellant to show that the duty liability in respect of the yarn manufactured by the appellant have been discharged by M/s. Super Syncotex, the principal manufacturer. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The Notification No. 214/86 -C.E. exempts the goods specified in Col. 2 of the Table annexed to the notification manufactured in a factory as a job work and used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products specified in Col. 3 of the said Table, from the whole of the duty of excise, subject to certain conditions as specified in this notification. As per this notification, this exemption is available subject to the condition that the supplier of the raw materials (principal manufacturer) gives an undertaking to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner having jurisdiction over the job work's factory, that the said goods manufactured by the job worker shall be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products in his factory and duty liability in respect of the same shall be discharged by him. In this case, no such undertaking given by the principal manufacturer has been produced. Moreover, we also find that while the goods manufactured by the appellants are the goods of Chapters 54 and 55, the Col. 2 mentioning the goods manufactured as job work eligible for exemption, does not cover the goods of Chapters 54 and 55. In view of this, the exemption under Notification No. 214/86 -C.E. was not available to the single ply yarn manufactured by the appellant out of the fibres supplied by the principal manufacturer. Moreover as mentioned in the show cause notice, during the period of dispute, there was no exemption from duty in respect of the single ply spun yarn manufactured in a factory and used for manufacture of doubled/multi -folded yarn. In view of this, we hold that duty has seen correctly demanded on the single ply yarn manufactured by the appellant on job work basis and cleared to the principal manufacturer after doubling. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.