2006 (3) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The appellant is a job worker and is receiving the man made fabrics from the principal manufacturer under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 2-4-86 and was returning the same after processing to the principal manufacturer. Benefit of the said Notification has been denied and duty of Rs. 3,03,023/- stands confirmed again .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Trico Process Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III [2005 (189) E.L.T. 126 (Tri.-Mumbai)] laying down that job worker is not liable to duty on processed goods where in terms of Rule 57F(4). 3. We find that the provisions of Rule 57AC are identical to erstwhile Rule 57F(4). The appellant has also followed the procedure in terms of Notification No. 214/86, which is identical to the procedure required to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X