Job worker exemption under Notification No. 83/94-CE failed where the principal manufacturer lacked registration and the required undertaking.

A job worker could not claim exemption under Notification No. 83/94-CE where the principal manufacturer had no factory or excise registration and had not furnished the prescribed declaration or undertaking accepting duty liability. The exemption scheme made the principal manufacturer's compliance a condition precedent, and the absence of that undertaking meant the statutory conditions were not met. The shared power of attorney holder for both entities also undermined the plea of lack of knowledge. The exemption was denied and the duty demand and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, as a job worker, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 83/94-CE when the principal manufacturer had no factory or excise registration and had not furnished the requisite declaration or undertaking.

Analysis: The relevant exemption scheme placed responsibility on the principal manufacturer to accept duty liability through the prescribed undertaking. In the absence of such undertaking, and where the principal manufacturer neither had a factory nor was registered with the excise authorities, the conditions for extending the exemption were not satisfied. The common identity of the power of attorney holder for both entities also negatived the plea that the appellant was unaware of the principal's non-compliance.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption, and the demand of duty and penalty were upheld.

---