KAY CEE ELECTRICALS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the challenge has been made to the impugned order in appeal by the appellants vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order in original of the adjudicating authority which confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 56,752/ - with equal amount of penalty on the appellants.

(2.) The learned Counsel has contended that the appellants are only job worker and they receive the raw material under Rule 57AC read with Notification No. 214/86 under which the manufacturer/supplier of the raw material furnished an undertaking to discharge the duty on the finished goods after receipt of the same from the job worker. Therefore, no duty demand could be raised against the appellants specially when there is no evidence on record to prove that the supplier of the raw material had denied the receipt of finished goods after the job work from the appellants. The Counsel has also contended that even otherwise there was no shortage of finished goods as in the RG. I as recorded in the panchnama itself, the balance shown was nil and the same tallied on physical verification. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) The learned SR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.