2005 (8) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rming duty demand and imposing penalty. The allegation against the appellant is that they had not taken into consideration the value of the raw materials received free of cost from their customer viz. M/s. L T Komatsu Ltd. under Rule 57F(4) challans. The appellants' contention is that they are not producing the final product but only carrying out certain processes/operations and the inputs used .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated 20-9-2004 wherein this very point has been clarified and the appeal of the assessee has been allowed. The finding recorded in para 5 of the order is reproduced herein below : "5. We have examined the rival contentions. It is a fact that the appellants carried out job work after receiving the raw material from the principal manufacturer. Under Rule 57F(4) the obligation to pay duty is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed from M/s. L T Komatsu Ltd. and paid duty on that also. 3. On a careful consideration, we find that the facts of the Ujagar Prints case is clearly distinguishable as in that case, the final product was cleared by the job worker. Therefore, he was required to have added the cost of the raw materials. In the present case, the raw materials have been received free of cost under Rule 57F(4) chal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X