2015 (11) TMI 509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tt. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P.K. Jain: Heard both sides. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a division of National Textile Corporation Ltd. They were getting the fabrics after payment of duty. Thereafter, such fabrics were being sent to certain job-workers for converting them into garments falling under Chapter 62 and made-ups falling under Chapter 63. The demand in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case may be remanded so that they will be in a position to produce the CENVAT credit invoices and there after the exact duty liability can be determined. 4. We find force in the argument of the appellant. Appellants are not disputing the duty liability. All that what they are asking is the credit of the duty paid on the inputs should be given on actual basis rather than deemed basis. In view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er. Ownership of the input material is of no consequences. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the made-ups are not manufactured by the appellant but by the job-workers. Hence the duty liability will be with the job-worker and not with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that Rule 12B was amended w.e.f. 01/04/2003 and from that date onwards they are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X