1996 (3) TMI 261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ember (T)]. This appeal is against the order of the CCE, Madras. Duty has been demanded from the appellants for the reason that they did not qualify for the benefit [of] the provisions of Rule 56C under which they were entitled to the benefit of clearance of the goods duty free being secondary manufacturer in terms of Rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Shri Venkatavaradan, lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was received by the appellants and the same was returned to the principal manufacturer after the completion of the job work duty should not have been demanded from the appellants. 3. The learned DR does not contest the above position. The learned lower appellate authority has not entered any finding that the raw material had not been received from the principal manufacturer. 4. We have consid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ining their records for return of the goods manufactured out of the raw material supplied by the principal manufacturer. There is no finding entered that these goods could not be related to the principal manufacturer. The only finding entered is that bolts and nuts which were used in the manufacture of item 68 goods. We observe that simply because appellants have used certain raw material which ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X