LAWS(CE)-2001-7-441

EICHER LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,

Decided On July 09, 2001
Eicher Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal field by M/s. Eicher Limited formerly known as M/s. Royal Enfield Motors Ltd., Madras against the order in original No. 53/96 dt. 8.11.96 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai confirming the duty demand of Rs.18,05,915/ - under Section 11 A (1) of the CE Act. The appellants have also been directed to reverse an amount of Rs.1,28,310/ - under Rs. 1,28,310/ - under Rule 57 I read with proviso to Section 11 A (1) of the CE Rules Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. 19,34,225/ - by the Commissioner.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the appellants, the Ld. Counsel, Shri T.S. Balasubramanian, submits that they are no the manufacturer. The job work has been done by their job worker M/s. Bharadwaj Industries, a SSI unit. if at all the duty is required to be paid which should be paid by the Manufacturer viz. M/s. Bharadwaj Industries. They wee manufacturing only Castings for the sprocket, OD and Hub and castings are exempted from payment of Central Excise duty. The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to para 9 of the impugned order in which the Commissioner has not considered the plea that the appellants are not manufacturers and the job workers to whom the materials were sent under Rule 57F (3) has to be treated as manufacturer. The Ld. Commissioner has also not considered the various judgments cited by them and the demands are time barred. He submits that the Departments was fully aware that the goods have been sent to the job workers under Rule 57F (3) of the CE Rules. Therefore there is no suppression of the material facts. The Ld. Counsel has also stated that the penalty equivalent to the amount of duty imposed in this case is very high and in the facts and circumstances of the case penalty should not have been imposed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has not given any findings as to how he resorted to impose penalty equivalent to the amount of duty on the Modvat credit taken.

(3.) The Ld. Dr reiterates the finding of the Department.