2016 (11) TMI 865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt Commissioner having jurisdiction of the factory of the job worker and the said declaration have been accepted by the said Assistant Commissioner. In that circumstances, the Condition of the notification has been complied with by the principal manufacture. In that circumstances, the proceedings against the appellant are not warranted. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to benefit o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty. The principal manufacturer instead of filing the undertaking before the Assistant Commissioner of the Job Worker filed the same before Assistant Commissioner of its jurisdiction. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny the benefit of Notification No. 214/86. Consequently, to demand the duty along with interest and to impose penalty on the appellant. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the fact the principal manufacture filed the undertaking before the Assistant Commissioner of the Range of the appellant and discharge the duty on the job worked goods, therefore, the proceedings against the appellant is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submits that as the condition of Notification 214/86-CE has been contravened, therefore, the duty is rightly demanded in the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X