9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the appellants) are engaged in the activities of body building for motor vehicles and fabrication of fuel tanks and base plates. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- 2. The appellants undertook on job work basis, fabrication of fuel tanks and base plates for dumper bodies for the principal manufacturers M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., and M/s. Tatra Udyog Ltd., respectively. They received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority held that in terms of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, the appellants should have included cost of the raw material supplied by the customers. He also held that the appellants were liable for penalty under section 11AC on account of suppression of facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal No. 557/02, dated 24-9-2002, upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the lower authority. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Jaipur v. Tirupati Fabrics and Industries Ltd., reported in 2001 (46) RLT 8 relying on the Larger Bench decision has held that duty has to be charged on the principal manufacturer and not the job worker as otherwise clause 2 of Rule 57F(4) become superfluous inasmuch as duty will be charged twice on the same goods once from the job worker and again from the principal manufacturer. 3. Heard Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke, the job worker had paid duty on the raw material used by him that should not be a reason for the department to demand duty from him on the entire value of the goods. Hence the demand of duty in this case cannot be sustained. There is no justification for imposing penalty under Section 11AC and demanding interest under Section 11AB. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
