2008 (6) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notification No. 214/86, whereas the exemption claimed and disallowed in respondent’s case is under Notification No. 16/97. Since Tribunal has not considered respondent’s liability in payment of duty on the re-rolled products, but has decided the appeal by treating the demand as one pertaining to clearances of ingots, order of the Tribunal set aside and restore the appeal back to the Tribunal for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed from the records are the following. Respondent made steel ingots in their plant and supplied the same to job worker, namely, M/s. Palakkad Steels, for conversion of the same into re-rolled products and for returning re-rolled products to the respondent, which marketed it. Even though duty was payable by the manufacturer of the hot re-rolled products under notification No. 214/86, respondent adm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or in assuming that the duty demanded is on the ingots removed to the job worker. On the other hand, from the orders of the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority, we find that demand is raised on re-rolled products cleared by respondent. Since respondent was not the manufacturer, they were not found to be eligible for the SSI exemption claimed under Notification No. 16/97. The T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X