TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in case the finally manufactured goods are not exported by the merchant exporters, the demand of duty can be raised only against the exporter and not against the manufacturer - Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. - E/3030/06 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2011 - Hon ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon ble Dr. P. Babu, Member (Technical) Appellant : Shri J.S. Negi, SDR Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri J.S. Negi, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondents had brought the filament yarn based f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal with the CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai, who remanded back the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. In denovo proceedings, Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee by observing as under: The issue involved in both the appeals is that the merchant exporter had imported polyester filament flat partially oriented yarn under duty exemption scheme of EXIM Policy. These imported goods were received by the appellants from the merchant exporter for texturising on job work basis. The appellants had cleared the same after texturising without payment of duty under Notification No.34/94-CE dated 01.03.1994 and thereafter the same were exported by the merchant exporter under different AR4s. It is observed that the merchant exporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... require to discharge the duty liability, if any. Thus I find that in no way the appellants, the job workers, can be held responsible for non-compliance of any of the conditions of the Notification No.34/94 and Trade Notice No.78/94 because their duty was only to carry out the job work and return the same to its supplier for further disposal at their end as prescribed in Notification and the Trade Notice respectively. It is legally incorrect to inflict the duty liability upon the appellants due to non-compliance/non-fulfillment of conditions of the above said Notification and Trade Notice by the concerned merchant exporter. He also took into consideration the Tribunal s decision in the case of Shree Vithal S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia. Admittedly the appellant herein has manufactured the textured yarn on job work basis. Such textured yarn was to be exported by the merchant exporters under different AR-4s. Though the Revenue has contended that the AR-4s produced by the merchant exporters are not clearly showing as to whether the same are in respect of the textured yarn manufactured by the appellant, we find that the said fact is irrelevant in as much as admittedly the duty liability would fasten upon the merchant manufacturer, who had sent the raw material to the present appellant for manufacture. The exporter had filed the bond for export of the goods in question. The language of the proviso to notification is clear as regards the satisfaction of the Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
