DINESH TEXTILES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is required to pre -deposit an amount of Rs. 17,79,537/ - being duty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the Revenue by setting aside the Order -in -Original No. 9/2005 dated 30 -1 -2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut, dropping the proceedings. In terms of Notification No. 05/2003 -C.E., dated 30 -6 -2003, the suppliers of raw materials are liable to pay duty in case the supply made to the job worker exceeds more than Rs. 25 lakhs. The appellant is the supplier of raw materials to more than 70 job workers for manufacturing textiles. The department issued a show cause notice on the basis of the turn over of the appellants which was found to be Rs. 1,45,77,389/ -. The Original authority found that the clearances were within the SSI exemption limit of Rs. 25 lakhs and hence, they are eligible for the benefit of the Notification and dropped the proceedings. The Revenue agitated the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that one of the job workers namely, M/s Dinesh Weaving Mills had crossed the total limit of Rs. 25 lakhs. Therefore the duty is demandable. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view for confirmation of demand that total clearance of all the goods cleared by the appellants from all the job workers would be chargeable to duty. The Notification No. 05/2003 -C.E., dated 30 -6 -2003 grants exemption up to Rs. 25 lakhs. The appellants point out that only one job worker namely, M/s Dinesh Weaving Mills had crossed the limit of Rs. 25 lakhs and their total turnover was more than Rs. 57 lakhs. The learned Consultant submits that the appellants are facing severe financial hardship and are not in position to deposit the amount. He also submits that the proposition on which the duty has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not accepted for the reason that the Revenue has not proved that one of the job workers namely, M/s Dinesh Weaving Mills had crossed the turnover of Rs. 25 lakhs and there is no evidence with regard to this finding.

(2.) THE learned SDR strongly opposes the prayer and submits that the Revenue had produced entire documents and there is an admission of one of the job workers namely, M/s Dinesh Weaving Mills that they had a turnover of more than Rs. 57 lakhs. She submits that the Commissioner has verified the fact that M/s Dinesh Weaving Mills had exceeded their turnover of more than Rs. 57 lakhs and the interpretation given by the Commissioner that the entire clearances should be taken for fixing the duty is correct.

(3.) THE learned Consultant submits that the Commissioner has not verified any documents and therefore the order is not correct.