Page 305 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, JAMMU & KASHMIR v. GRAVITA METALS 191

manufacture, the payment of duty shall amount of reversal of Cenvat credit.
Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner has rightly allowed the claim of Cenvat credit
to M/s. GM. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
23. As regards the issue framed as point (e) - Whether M/s. GMI is en-
titled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 214/86-C.E. or not.
We find that, in terms of Notification No. 214/86, the principal manufac-
turer has to file an undertaking before the jurisdictional Central Excise authority
of job works that the principal manufacturer shall pay the duty on the manufac-
tured goods. Admittedly, the said undertaking has been filed by M/s. GM before
the authorities below. In that circumstance, there is no fault of the appellant and
the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 cannot be denied.
A similar issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Moon
Chemicals (supra), wherein the Tribunal observed as under :-
“3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that the
lower appellate authority sustained the demand of duty on the ground that
the condition laid down in para (2) of Notification No. 214/86 was not
complied with by the appellants. The goods specified under the Notifica-
tion were exempted from payment of duty of excise, where such goods
were manufactured in a factory as a job work and utilized in relation to the
manufacture of final products on which duty of excise was leviable. The ex-
empted goods and the final products were specified respectively in Col. 1 &
Col. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification. It is not in dispute that the
raw material received by the appellants from M/s. Vijay Detergent Prod-
ucts (P) Ltd. and the goods returned to the latter after job work were speci-
fied in the Table annexed to the Notification. Again, it is not in dispute that
the goods after job work were supplied to M/s. Vijay Detergent Products
(P) Ltd. under cover of commercial invoices and that only the labour charg-
es mentioned in such invoices were collected from them by the appellants.
The Revenue has no case that the work undertaken by the appellants did
not fall within the scope of the expression “job work” under Explanation-I to
the Notification. Their only case is that the condition laid down in para (2)
of the Notification was not complied with by the appellants. The appellants
have claimed that the Sodium Silicate Solution returned after job work to
their customer was removed by the latter on payment of duty for home
consumption from their factory. This claim has not been contested by the
Revenue. In the circumstances, the appellants were eligible for the benefit
of the Notification subject to the surviving condition that the raw material-
supplier gave an undertaking to the Asst. Commissioner or Deputy Com-
missioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the appellants’ factory
to the effect that the goods would be removed (by the raw material-
supplier) on payment of duty for home consumption. The demand of duty
is consequential to non-fulfilment of this condition. The appellants have re-
sisted the demand of duty on the ground that it was for the raw material-
supplier to comply with the said condition. It is their further case that the
department could have recovered duty on the subject goods from M/s.
Vijay Detergent Products (P) Ltd. on the ground of non-fulfilment of the
said condition. We find that the Tribunal’s decision in Aggarwal Rolling
Mills (supra) supports this case of the appellants. No binding decision to
the contrary was cited by the DR.
In view of the above observations, we hold that M/s. GMI is entitled to avail the
benefit of Notification No. 214/86 (ibid) and therefore, we are not going to the
issue of whether M/s. GMI is entitled for exemption Notification No. 56/2002
(ibid) or not.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  353