Commissioner Of Central Excise … vs M/S Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. on 23 August, 2010

            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.

(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)
perwez