9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal. 2. The appellants had undertaken a job work for M/s.Walchandnagar Industries Limited (hereinafter referred as 'principal manufacturer') during the period April to September 2000. As part of the job work, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to recover interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act from the appellants, apart from proposing penalties on both the parties. The appellants contested the demands raised on them. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty against the appellants by denying them the benefit of Notification No.214/86-CE ibid, appropriated the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts under Notification No.214/06-CE and that the principal manufacturer paid duty on the job-worked goods albeit belatedly. In the circumstances, according to ld. Counsel, any demand of interest could be raised on the principal manufacturer only and not on the appellants. We have heard ld. SDR also, who has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they did not pay duty on the goods at the time of its clearance from their factory. Apparently, the principal manufacturer was availing the benefit of Notification No.6/2000-CE. However, when pointed out by the departmental investigators, they paid the duty, a fact acknowledged by both of the lower authorities. The show-cause notice was issued only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
