9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R), for the Appellant. Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent was engaged in manufacture of Texturised Pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Polyester Filament Yarn for the period December 1999 to January 2000. The adjudication took place demand of duty was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the respondent. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. 3. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before us. 4. The learned AR submits that the respondent are not entitled fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent on Texturised Polyester Filament Yarn and after execution of job work of the goods in return to the principal manufacturer and as per C.B.E.& C. Circular No. 306/22/97-CX., dated 20-3-1997, the respondent is not liable to pay duty. Therefore the impugned order to be upheld. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. In this case the respondent were doing job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the said Circular, the duty liability is on the manufacturer not on the job worker. If the supplier has not reversed 10% of the Cenvat credit on the inputs, it is the supplier to be asked to reverse the same, not the respondent. Moreover, the duty liability is to suffered on the final product by the principal manufacturer not on the job worker i.e. the respondent. Therefore, the provision of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
