IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.472 of 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOVT.OF INDIA, PATNA, 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, P.S.KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA…………………………….APPELLANT/APPELLANT Versus M/S PRABHAT ZARDA FACTORY (INDIA) LTD, NEW AREA, SIKANDARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR)…. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT with MA No.503 of 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GOVT. OF INDIA. PATNA, 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, P.S.KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA……………………………..APPELLANT/APPELLANT Versus M/S PRABHAT ZARDA FACTORY (INDIA) LTD, NEW AREA, SIKANDARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR)…. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT with MA No.504 of 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GOVT OF INIDA . PATNA, 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, P.S.KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA….APPELLANT/APPELLANT Versus M/S PRABHAT ZARDA FACTORY LTD. LTD, NEW AREA, SIKANDARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR)……………………... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ----------- For appellants:- Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate For respondents:- Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate ------------ 03/ 23-Aug-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant in all the three cases and learned counsel for the respondent- company. 2. On behalf of the appellants it has been strenuously argued that in fact it was found by the Excise Commissioner that excise duty was payable when the 2 unbranded chewing tobacco was given to M/s RDS and M/s GMS for packing and labeling etc in the unit situated within the registered premises of the respondent-company. According to revenue or the appellants the packing and labeling etc though carried out within the factory premises of the respondent was being done by the organizations having separate existence and such job work used in the manufacture of final product was liable for payment of excise duty. 3. Learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kokata has dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellant for different financial years raising the same issues after coming to a conclusion that there was no contravention of the excise law because labour contractors were working within the factory premises of the respondent-company and were being paid on piece rate basis which amounted to undertaking job work in respect of filling/packing/labeling of chewing tobacco. 4. On consideration of entire materials the Tribunal agreed with the finding of the adjudicating 3 Commissioner that it was a revenue neutral situation for the entire period in question. We were not shown any notification or law in support of claim that excise duty was leviable in respect of job work being done in the premises of the respondent-company. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no illegality or error in the orders of the Tribunal under appeal in these three appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)