IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 C.E.Appeal.No. 21 of 2005() --------------------------- ANO..E/971/2003 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE .................... APPELLANT:- ------------------- THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CALICUT COMMISSIONERATE, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT:- -------------------- M/S.EXCEL CORRUGATED BOXES (P) LTD., ELAPULLY, PALAKKAD, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, ALONG WITH CEA NO. 23 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ============================ C.E.Appeal Nos. 21 & 23 of 2005. ============================ Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. J U D G M E N T These appeals are filed against the common orders of the Tribunal cancelling the demand of duty and penalty on the respondent assessee. 2. We have heard Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, Asst.S.G., appearing for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the respondent and have also gone through the order of the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the respondent manufactured and supplied corrugated carriers to M/s.Pepsi on job work basis. The awarder ie., M/s.Pepsi sent raw materials along with challan prescribed under Rule 57F(3). The Tribunal found that M/s.Pepsi and other awardees who got the work done through the respondent on job work basis also sent raw materials in accordance with the procedure and by filing declaration C.E.Appeal Nos. 21 & 23 of 2005. 2 under Notification No.214/86-CE. The duty is claimed from the respondent for the reason that the declaration filed by the awardees were belated. The Tribunal noticed that for belated supply declaration, the respondent cannot be penalised through levy of duty. It is not in dispute that the awardees are liable for payment of duty for the goods cleared to them. We do not find any grievance at all because if duty is charged, they are entitled to get Cenvat credit and when duty is not charged credit is not taken by them. Consequently, the awardees will be paying full duty on the products sold by them. Therefore we find no grievance for the department against the order of the Tribunal. We therefore dismiss the appeals. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-