9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification - Held that: - the decision in the case of M/s. Trico Process Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2005 (5) TMI 152 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] squarely covers the issue where the duty demand on the job worker is set aside, especially where the laminated fabrics have been received back by the input supplier; if the fabrics have not been received back, the principal manufacturer is required to reverse the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the principle manufacturer subject to condition was availed. The benefit of this notification has been denied on the ground that the man-made fabrics are not covered by the Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 2-4-86 and duty amounting to Rs. 3,03,023/- has been confirmed. Penalty has also been imposed on the appellant. 2. Learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse the credit. The concept of Rule 57F(4) or 57AC is to retain the supplier of the input as a manufacturer of such inputs outsourced out of his factory. Such an onus cannot be cast on job worker. These observations have been made in the case of M/s. Trico Process Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai as reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 126 (Tri-Mumbai) and the learned advocate submits that the decision is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plier of the raw material fulfills the requirement of notification. The Tribunal's decision does not deal with the cases of goods not covered by Notification No. 214/86 and therefore is not relevant. On the other hand, we find that not only the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Trico Process Pvt. Ltd. support the case of the appellant but there are several other decisions wherein same decisions hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
