9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority was Rs. 31,294/-. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Floor Grills and Peg Fins falling under-heading 7326.90, "Step thread" falling under heading 7308.90 and "Waste scrap" falling under heading 7204.90 and avail the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. While availing so, the appellant also took input credit of duty on the inputs received by them and utilised the same against payment of final products cleared. 2.1.Appellant also undertook job work on the raw materials supplied by various suppliers in terms of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. Show cause notice dated 13-5-1997 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b worker. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal. 4.Heard Shri B.L. Meena, learned SDR who defended the impugned order. 5.I have carefully considered the submissions made and gone through the case records. The allegation in the show cause notice is that the appellant has manufactured and cleared FBC Boiler parts falling under heading 8402 in contravention of the Central Excise Rules. On going through the Annexure II to the show cause notice, it is seen that that the appellant received raw materials valued at Rs 3,98,911.00 from suppliers and on which they have done job work. These raw material were processed by the appellant and after processing, the processed goods were returned to the suppliers in terms of Notification No. 214/86 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products." 6.It is clear from the above that the responsibility of furnishing undertaking etc. in terms of the Notification is cast on the supplier of the goods and not on the job worker. In the present case, it is an admitted position by the Revenue itself that the raw materials were supplied to the appellant by various suppliers and on which the appellant has done job work and returned the processed goods to the suppliers of the raw materials. In the circumstances, what prevented the departmental authorities to call for further details, if required, from the suppliers of the raw-materials in terms of Cause (2) of the Notification is not understandable, before asking the job worker to pay duty on the job work done, when in fact the job w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
