TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether goods manufactured on job-work basis and cleared under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. dated 25.03.1986 could be treated as exempted goods so as to attract Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and require payment of 8% of the value of clearances.
Analysis: The appellant manufactured the goods as job work under Rule 57F(3) and the clearances were governed by Notification No. 214/86-C.E., under which the principal manufacturer bears the duty liability on the final product or on removal of the job-work goods as such. On that footing, the job-work clearances could not be treated as exempted goods in the sense contemplated by Rule 57CC. The earlier Tribunal view in similar matters was applied, and the contrary reliance on other decisions was held inapplicable because the issue here was whether Rule 57CC could be invoked at all in the context of job-work clearances under the notification.
Conclusion: Rule 57CC was held inapplicable to the job-work clearances under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., and the refund rejection was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, with relief in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods manufactured on job work under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., where the principal manufacturer remains liable for the duty on the final product, are not exempted goods for the purpose of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
