Job-work duty liability must be raised against the principal manufacturer by the proper territorial officer, not through the job worker.

Under Notification No. 214/86, duty liability in a job-work arrangement attaches to the principal manufacturer, and a demand cannot be sustained when routed through the job worker. The notice was also held without jurisdiction because the issuing officer lacked territorial authority over the principal manufacturer, whose jurisdiction lay with another Commissionerate. On these facts, the impugned order was set aside and the demand failed both on merits and on jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty could be demanded from the principal manufacturer through the job worker under the job-work notification; (ii) Whether the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether duty could be demanded from the principal manufacturer through the job worker under the job-work notification.

Analysis: The undertaking under Notification No. 214/86 had been furnished by the principal manufacturer to the proper jurisdictional officer over the job worker. On the facts, the duty liability, if any, attached to the principal manufacturer directly and not through the job worker. The demand made in the impugned order proceeded against the principal manufacturer through the job worker, which was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand on this ground was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice.

Analysis: The principal manufacturer was located within the jurisdiction of another Commissionerate, and the officer issuing the notice did not have jurisdiction over that principal manufacturer. Jurisdiction to demand duty in such circumstances lay with the proper officer having territorial jurisdiction over the principal manufacturer, not with the officer at Rohtak.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the demand failed on both merits and jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a job-work arrangement under Notification No. 214/86, duty liability must be enforced against the principal manufacturer by the proper officer having jurisdiction over that principal manufacturer, and not by demanding duty through the job worker or by an officer lacking territorial jurisdiction.

---