9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a processor of man made fabrics. They received processed fabric on job work and sent them back to their principal under job work challan issued under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001. Since fabrics are not covered under Notification 214/86, duty has been demanded on such clearanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the appellants submits that the subject clearances under job work challan issued under Rule 4(5)(a) did not attract a duty as held by this Tribunal in the case of Mukesh Inds. vs. CCE 2009 (248) ELT 203 (T-Ahd) and Akash Fashions Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (245) ELT 871 (T-Ahd). 3. Heard and considered. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions, the appellants are re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sustained against job worker in terms of provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Rules or under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001. Therefore, the Tribunal held that no demand is sustainable in such a situation. 5. By applying the ratio of law, laid down by this Tribunal in the above cited cases, to the facts of the case in hand, we hold that there is no dispute about the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
