TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said final product is cleared on payment of duty, the appellant is clearly entitled for exemption N/N. 214/86-CE. As regards the undertaking required to be submitted, we find that in the said under taking also the Principal Manufacturer has to undertake that job worked goods will be used in the manufacture of final product which shall be cleared on payment of duty for the home consumption and/ or for the purpose of export. Therefore, on verification, if it is established that final products wherein the job worked goods i.e. Formaldehyde was used, has been cleared on payment of duty in the home consumption and/ or cleared for export without payment of duty under Bond then, appellant s manufacture on job work basis is clearly covered by ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was confirmed for the longer period. 2. Shri Anandodaya Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no lapse on the part of the appellant. They have received the raw material under job work challans and after processes on job worked goods, the same were returned to the principal manufacturers under job work challans. The principal manufacturer have used the said job worked goods in the manufacture of final products which were cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the appellant s job work is exempted under Notification No. 214/86-CE. 3. As regards the sole reason for denial of exemption that the principal manufacturer have not filed undertaking, Learned Counsel submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job worked goods are used, on payment of duty, the department has not made any effort to consider the fact of payment of duty, demand is not sustainable on this ground. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) Uniworth Textiles Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2013 (1) TMI 616 (b) Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. CCE, Bombay 1994 (9) TMI 86 (c) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Chempar Drugs and Liniments AIR 1989 SC 832 (d) Continental Foundation Joint Venture Sholding vs. CCE, Chandigarh (Hon ble Supreme Court judgment dated 29.08.2007) (e) Hershey India Pvt. Limited vs. CCE ST, Bhopal (Order No. 50769/2019 dated 01.02.2019) 5. Shri S.K. Shukla, Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by exemption Notification No 214/86-CE. It is also observed that the appellant have submitted affidavit which was not taken stock of by the Adjudicating Authority. We make it clear that the undertaking even if it is found not filed, for the job work assigned, exemption cannot be denied. Since the Adjudicating Authority has not verified the facts regarding nature of clearances of final product by the Principal Manufacturers that, for the home consumption on payment of duty and/ or export under Bond, the matter needs to be remanded for the limited purpose of this verification and all other issues raised by the appellant, are kept open. We, therefore, set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for passi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
