9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. Ld. Counsel Shri J.P. Kaushik vehemently objects the assessment on two counts : (1) The appellant is governed by Rule 4(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which does not call for any payment of duty by the Appellant since that shall be recoverable from the manufacturer of the final product. (2) That the Notification No. 214/86, dt. 25-3-86 brings the appellant to Col. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion but that should not be an inpediment for job worker. Department has not made out a case showing ultimate manufacture of final goods by job worker making violation of the rules stated in para 2 of the Notification. In support of his contention he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jalandhar v. Kapsons Inds. Ltd. reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 460 (Tri.) = 2007 (82) RLT 48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that para 2 of the Notification No. 214/86, dt. 25-3-86 denied exemption claimed by the Appellant. 3. We have heard both the sides. On going through the record and on examination of the Rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Notification 214/86, dt. 25-3-86, we are of the view that interpretation of para 2 of Notification No. 214/86, dt. 25-3-86 calls for a strict construction, and has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
