HI-TECH DIECAST PVT. LTD. AND Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeals are directed against Order -in -Appeal No. 104 and 105/2000 (CBE) (GVN) both dated 8.11.2000 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the duty paid by M/s. Hi -Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd., the principal/primary manufacturer who paid the duty on the goods manufactured by the job worker on the ground that it is the job worker who has to discharge the duty and this discharge by the primary manufacturer or principal manufacturer cannot be treated as duty paid.

(2.) LEARNED Chartered Accountant, Shri P.C. Anand appearing on behalf of both the appellants submits that the appellants were manufacturers of iron casting falling under chapter sub -heading 7325.10. Both the units belong to the same group and are situated adjacent to each other. M/s. Hi -Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. (the primary manufacturer) sent the raw materials to the second unit, namely, M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 57F (2) challan procedure and got the goods manufactured from the job worker and the duty was paid by the primary manufacturer on the goods manufactured by the job worker, namely, M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

(3.) THE Additional Commissioner in his Orders -in -Original No. 23/99 (A.D.C.) both dated 31.12.99 has confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 9,62,457 on the appellant, M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and duty of Rs. 93,038 on the other appellant M/s. Hi -Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that since the goods have been manufactured by the job worker, the job worker should have paid the duty themselves. The duty paid by the primary manufacturer was not accepted by him. He also imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rule 173 -Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, respectively, on the appellants.