TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant. - Appeal No. E/245/2012 - Final Order No. 42241 / 2018 - Dated:- 9-8-2018 - Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) And Hon ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member ( Judicial ) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturers of steel forgings, aluminium rings and end-cutting scraps. During verification of documents, it emerged that appellants had undertaken job work viz. forging operation and machining of raw materials sent by various parties under job work challans and returned the resultant products to supplier s concern and collected job charges from them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner (Appeals) they had produced xerox copy of L T s letter dt. 25.6.2009 (available at page 37of paper book) evidencing receipt of goods from appellant and undergoing further manufacture. He submits that there is also no allegation that the requirements of Rule 6 of CCR have not been complied with. Ld. Advocate further submits that the identical matter has been decided in their favour in a number of Tribunal s decisions, for example, Salem Weld Mesh Vs CCE Salem - 2007 (218) ELT 405 (Tri.-Chennai); Moon Chemicals Vs CCE Thiruvananthapuram 2007 (215) ELT 434 (Tri.-Chennai); Vishal Pipes Ltd. Vs CCE Noida 2011 (263) ELT 81 (Tri.-Del.); GG Automotive Gears Ltd. Vs CCE ST Indore 2014 (12) TMI 316 CESTAT New Delhi a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dt. 13.07.2012 from BHEL which also gives details that raw materials sent to the appellants have been received back after conversion and that they have undergone further manufacture at their end. 5.2 This being so, we find that all the conditionalities and requirements of Notification No.214/86-CE have been substantively complied with both by the principal manufacturers as well as by the appellants. Non-submission of undertaking by the principal manufacturers should then be considered as a curable defect. In any case, such undertakings have been subsequently filed by the said suppliers. 5.3 We also find that the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Advocate fully support their case. In the recent decision of CESTAT Chennai in S.L.O Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 214/86 by the principal cannot result in a demand. In the instant case also, we find that declaration and the intimation has been filed albeit with some delay by the job worker himself and also by the principal manufacturer. 6. In respect of the case laws submitted by the ld.A.R., the Tribunal decision in Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. (supra) relates to a case where the demand was made on the principal manufacturer who in turn had contended that the job workers have manufactured finished goods and there was no availment of Notification No.214/86 by the principal, hence duty liability could not be fastened on them. This submission was upheld by the Tribunal. Coming to the Supreme Court judgment in Eagle Flask Industries (supra), we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
