KARTAR ROLLING MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
LAWS(SC)-2006-3-107
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 08,2006

Kartar Rolling Mills Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

COMMR. OF CUS. AND C. EX. VS. J.S. GUPTA AND SONS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-280] [REFERRED TO]
RATHI TINS MORENA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN INDIA CONCAST LIMITED & ORS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LIMITED (AGARTALA UNIT) AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAMDAS AND CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2010-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
AGRO SOLVENT PRODUCTSPVT LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
GULABCHAND SILK MILLS PVT. LTD VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(APH)-2010-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
BINDAL SMELTING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-144] [REFERRED TO]
AKROSS SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-161] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, 143, NEW BARADWARI, JAMSHEDPUR 831001 VS. M/S. CASTIINGS (INDIA) INC., PLOT NO. 29, IVTH PHASE, ADITYAPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, GAMHARIA, JAMSHEDPUR [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM INDUSTRIES VS. COMMNR OF CENTRAL EXCISE HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
SARAVANA INSULATORS LTD. VS. THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-301] [REFERRED TO]
CC PREVENTIVE AMRITSAR VS. MALWA INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(SC)-2009-2-236] [REFERRED TO]
SANGHVI RECONDITIONERS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENT TRADERS VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TIRUPATI [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-100] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This order shall dispose of all the three appeals as the facts are identical in these appeals. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 641 of 2001.
(2.)This is a statutory appeal filed u/s. 35-L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in Final Order No. 1055/2000-B (composite Final Orders Nos. 1052-55/2000-B) dated 3.07.2000 passed in Appeal No. E/2635/99-B.
(3.)The appellants were manufacturing hot rolled untrimmed sheets/circles of copper and copper alloys falling under Chapter Heading No. 74.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were holding a Central excise registration certificate and were clearing the goods on payment of Central excise duty till 28.02.1994. They surrendered their Central excise registration certificate with effect from 24.03.1994. A show-cause notice was issued under the Act on 12.07.1994 to show cause as to why the duty amounting to Rs. 2,14,780.00 for the period from 1.03.1994 to 31.03.1994 and Rs. 87,512.00 for the period 1.04.1994 to 10.04.1994 be not imposed and recovered under R. 9(2), of the Rules read with Sec. 11-A of the Act. Notice for levy of penalty was also issued. The duty demand of Rs. 2,14,780.00 and Rs. 87,512.00 in respect of the goods cleared by them during the period 1.03.1994 to 31.03.1994 and 1.04.1994 to 10.04.1994 respectively were confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Gurgaon and a penalty of Rs. 28,000.00 was also imposed on them vide Order-in-Original No. 55 of 1995 dated 16.03.1995, inter alia, on the following grounds:
"(i) The suppliers had sent raw material for job work under R. 57-F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the appellants, after filing intimation under R. 57-F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 but failed to follow the provisions of Chapter V-AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also did not pay any duty on the goods job worked upon.

(ii) Hence, the documents based on which job work was done were not proper documents under R. 57-F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and nor the exemption under Notification No. 214/86 was attracted on intermediate products.

(iiii) Even though R. 57-F(2) procedure was followed inasmuch goods were received by the appellants under the prescribed challans, the benefit under the said rule was not available for the following reasons: (a) Declaration under R. 57-G of the Central Excise Rules was not filed.

(b) Credit under R. 57-A of the Central Excise Rules was not availed.

(c) Duty liability in terms of Notification No. 1/93 was not discharged by the suppliers of the semi-finished goods/raw material."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.