Just a moment...
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 steel rounds manufactured on job work basis were liable to duty despite having discharged duty liability under Section 3A, and whether the availability of Notification No. 214/86 was relevant in such circumstances.
Analysis: The goods were manufactured from billets sent by the principal manufacturer on job work basis. The duty liability on the rounds had already been discharged under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A. In that situation, the question whether Notification No. 214/86 was available or not was immaterial, because the decisive fact was that duty had already stood discharged on the goods.
Conclusion: The rounds could not again be made liable to duty, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.