Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether duty-free imported chemicals cleared under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus could be sent for job work where the fabrics were manufactured by the job workers themselves and whether such activity satisfied the conditions of the notification.
Analysis: The imported chemicals were supplied to the job workers with permission under para 4(iii) of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. The processed fabrics were returned to the unit with proper documentation and there was no allegation of diversion. The expression "job work" was construed liberally in earlier decisions, and the notification was understood to permit processing outside the unit when the goods were returned after the permitted process. On those facts, the processing carried out at the job workers' premises fell within the scope of the notification.
Conclusion: The demand of customs duty, interest and penalty was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-free goods are permitted to be sent outside an EOU for job work under the governing notification, the activity remains within the notification if the permitted processing is carried out with proper accounting and the processed goods are returned, even though some materials used in the process are manufactured by the job worker.