9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. ORDER Ld. Counsel submits that the appellant is a job worker for the period 1993-94 and the job worked goods were not liable to duty following Circular No. 306/22/97-CX., dated 20-3-1997. She also submits that job workers were exempt from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. According to the practice of the appellant, the job worked goods had gone thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty on the finished goods. No evidence was available to show that the job worked goods were used in manufacture of duty paying goods and third condition in the Notification to the effect that the ultimate manufacturer shall discharge the liability of the job worked goods was not available according to his perception. Therefore, he held that when the pre-requisite condition to avail the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have also looked into the Circular No. 306/22/97-CX., dated 20-3-1997. That Circular categorically states, that duty liability is dischargeable by manufacturer of final goods and not by job worker if the goods are received for job work under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Circular is subordinate to the legislative mandate incorporated in Notification. Therefore, the Circul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the raw material was not paying any excise duty and hence he could not have taken Cenvat credit or sent the goods for job work under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. When our aforesaid exercise does not convince us to say that the appellant has any case to go in its favour, we are compelled to uphold the appellant order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
