Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in view of Rule 12B(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the respondent could be fastened with liability when the job worker had obtained registration and the goods were found to be duty paid.
Analysis: The proviso to Rule 12B(1) permits a job worker in the textile sector to obtain registration and, in that situation, the provisions of the rules operate against the job worker for maintaining accounts, paying duty, preparing invoices and complying with the procedural requirements. On the facts, the job worker was registered with the Central Excise Department for processing textile goods, and the invoices placed on record showed that the seized goods were duty paid. The revenue did not dispute that factual position.
Conclusion: The respondent could not be implicated on the basis urged by the revenue, and the order setting aside the adjudication was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected after holding that the registered job worker bore the relevant compliance responsibility and the respondent was not liable on the facts established.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the job worker in textile processing is duly registered and the goods are shown to be duty paid, liability cannot be fastened on the other party merely for movement of goods under the job-work arrangement.