2018 (5) TMI 1345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri H. Singh,AR PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty by denying the benefit of Notification No.214/86-CE. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the activity of processing goods of M/s. HMT (TD) Ltd., on job work basis and to that effect an undertaking has been filed by the princ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terest and penalties were also imposed on them. Against those orders, the appellants are before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that in this case, it is not in dispute that the principal manufacturer on whose behalf the was doing the job work has filed an undertaking before the jurisdictional authority of the appellant in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE. In that circumstance, 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 facts are not in dispute that the principal manufacturer has filed an undertaking in terms of Notification N0.214/86-CE with the jurisdictional authority of the appellant that they will discharge duty burden on the goods manufactured by the appellant and the same were allowed to the appellant. In that circumstances, if the principal manufacturer has filed written undertaking, the proceedings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X