TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is a job worker, who did the processes on the goods received from the principal manufacturer. No duty liability can be fastened upon him even if the goods are not specified under N/N. 214/86-C.E. It stands concluded in the above judgments that the Provisions of Rule 57F(4) and Rule 4(5)(a) CCR are independent of the Notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d/crocheted fabrics as the said fabrics have been excluded from the list of specific final products eligible for job work exemption as per Sr. No. (II) of the table of the Notification No. 214/86- C.E. Therefore the appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 20-12-02 proposing recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,43,598/-, imposition of penalty and recovery of interest at the applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that benefit of confront under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, cannot be modulated by relying upon Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-86. 3. We find force in the above contention of the appellant. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Noorani Textile Mills reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 744 (Tribunal), it was held, by taking note of the Provisions of Rule 57F(4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to manufacturer. 4. By applying the ratio of the law declared in the above referred judgments, to the facts of the present case we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant is a job worker, who did the processes on the goods received from the principal manufacturer. No duty liability can be fastened upon him even if the goods are not specified under Notification No. 214/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
