Notification 214/86-CE filing obligation rests on the supplier, not the job worker, defeating the duty demand.

Notification No. 214/86-CE places the undertaking-filing obligation on the supplier of raw materials or semi-finished goods before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction over the job worker's factory. It does not create an express independent duty on the job worker to verify that the principal manufacturer has filed the undertaking. As the record showed filing of the undertaking and payment of duty on the job-worked goods, the demand against the job worker was unsustainable and the duty liability was negatived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the job worker was liable to pay duty for alleged non-compliance with Notification No. 214/86-CE when the undertaking was required to be filed by the supplier or principal manufacturer, and whether the job worker had an independent obligation to ensure such compliance.

Analysis: Notification No. 214/86-CE places the obligation to file the undertaking on the supplier of the raw materials or semi-finished goods before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction over the job worker's factory. The notification does not impose any express duty on the job worker to verify that the principal manufacturer has filed the undertaking before undertaking job work. Since the condition is cast on the supplier and the records showed filing of the undertaking and payment of duty on the job work goods, the demand raised against the job worker was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The job worker was not liable to pay duty on the alleged ground of non-compliance with Notification No. 214/86-CE, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---