Job work exemption notifications place duty liability on the principal manufacturer, not the job worker, when declarations are properly filed.

Manufacture undertaken by a job worker under Notifications No. 83/94 and 84/94 did not shift duty liability to the job worker where the required declarations had been furnished to the jurisdictional authorities. The notifications placed the duty burden on the raw material supplier or principal manufacturer, and the Board's circular of 18.4.1994 was relied on to confirm that liability attached to the principal manufacturer who gave the undertaking. On that basis, the demand against the job worker was held unsustainable and the order relieving the respondent from liability was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be demanded from the job worker when the work was undertaken under Notification No. 83/94 read with Notification No. 84/94 and the principal manufacturer had furnished the required declaration.

Analysis: The respondent carried out manufacture on job work basis under the exemption notifications, and the declarations required under the scheme had been furnished to the jurisdictional authorities. On these facts, the notifications placed the duty liability on the raw material supplier / principal manufacturer, not on the job worker. The Board's circular dated 18.4.1994 was relied upon to confirm that liability attaches to the principal manufacturer who gives the undertaking under the notifications.

Conclusion: The duty demand against the respondent was not sustainable, and the appellate order relieving the respondent from liability was affirmed against the Revenue.

---