9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T) (Oral)]. The appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 104 105/2000 (CBE) (GVN) both dated 8-11-2000 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the duty paid by M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd., the principal/primary manufacturer who paid the duty on the goods manufactured by the job worker on the ground that it is the job worker who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner in his Orders-in-Original No. 23/99 (A.D.C.) both dated 31-12-99 has confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 9,62,457/- on the appellant M/s. Unicast Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and duty of Rs. 93,038/- on the other appellant M/s. Hi-Tech Die Cast Ltd. on the ground that since the goods have been manufactured by the job worker, the job worker should have paid the duty themselves. The duty paid by the primar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nputs intended for M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. 5. Ld. DR, Shri C. Mani invited our attention to the comments furnished by the department which have been received by them vide letter dated 28-5-2002 of the AC (Appeals) that M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. have cleared their modvatable inputs to M/s. UCA for manufacture of goods without following the procedures of Rule 57F(3)/57F(4) and have re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd., the job manufacturer have not paid any duty for the goods which were manufactured out of inputs intended for M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and have noted that the total duty of Rs. 9,76,064/- and of Rs. 93,038/- has been paid by M/s. Hi-Tech Diecast Pvt. Ltd. in respect of goods which were manufactured by their job w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
