2009 (9) TMI 712 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - job-work - grey MMF classified under chapter heading Nos. 52, 54 and 55 and knitted or crocheted fabrics classified under chapter heading No. 60.01 under the cover of Annexure II - Held that - there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant is a job worker, who did the processes on the goods received from the principal manufacturer. No duty liability can be fastened upon him even if the goods are not specified under N/N. 214/86-C.E. It stands concluded in the above judgments that the Provisions of Rule 57F(4) and Rule 4(5)(a) CCR are independent of the Notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, in the case of 2009 (9) TMI 712 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD, heard the appeal of the appellants who were receiving grey MMF and knitted or crocheted fabrics under job work basis without payment of Central Excise duty. The appellants were issued a show cause notice for recovery of Central Excise duty, penalty, and interest. The demand was confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants argued that the job work was done under the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) and that the goods were returned to the principal manufacturer. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention, citing previous cases where it was held that the benefit of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules cannot be modulated by the notification. By applying the law declared in the previous judgments to the present case, the tribunal concluded that no duty liability can be fastened upon the job worker even if the goods are not specified under the notification. The tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The order was pronounced in court on 3-9-2009.