9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i [2015 (11) TMI 38 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that Duty on inputs used in the manufacture of final products cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in manufacture of final product, which were cleared on payment of duty by principal manufacturer, on job work basis not hit by provisions of Rule 57F of erstwhile Rule - demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the provisions of Rule 57F(4)/Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2002, He further contended that Rule 4(5)(A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 relates to Cenvat Credit only and does not provide any exemption to the job workers from payment of duty. He also stated that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in relying upon the other case where the proceedings initiated against the party for recovery of duty for the period June, 2002 to March, 2003 were dropped by the adjudicating authority because there was no finding/evidences to the party having received goods under the Notification No. 214/86. 5. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue is covered by this Tribunal s judgment in the case of Dhana Singh Synthetics Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Grey and Processed Manmade Fabrics and holding Central Excise Registration Certificate. In the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the appellants received fabrics for processing from two different parties for job work, accompanied with challans (i.e., Annexure II) issued under Rule 57F(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 57F(4) is corresponding to provision of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellants cleared the goods after processing to the supplier of the material under the cover of the Central Excise challans. A show cause notice dated 25-10-2004 was issued to the appellant proposing demand of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 34, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of M/s. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 (Tri.-LB) held that duty on inputs used in the manufacture of final products cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in manufacture of final product, which were cleared on payment of duty by principal manufacturer, on job work basis not hit by provisions of Rule 57F of erstwhile Rules. In the case of M. Text & D.K. Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Del.) the Tribunal held that partially processed fabrics returned by the job worker to the principal manufacturer after heat setting and stentering under Rule 57F(4) not required to pay duty in the hands of job worker even if heat setting and stentering amount to man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
