https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90866 Modvat credit was held not to be deniable merely because job-work processing under Rule 57F(2) was carried out at a different premises, where the inputs were admittedly received for job work, the deviation was only procedural, and the processed goods were returned for further use. The assessee was also not treated as a manufacturer merely because it had hired out machinery on a dry-lease basis; since it did not operate the machine or undertake the processing as its own activity, no excise duty liability could attach to it. On that footing, the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:55:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90866 Modvat credit was held not to be deniable merely because job-work processing under Rule 57F(2) was carried out at a different premises, where the inputs were admittedly received for job work, the deviation was only procedural, and the processed goods were returned for further use. The assessee was also not treated as a manufacturer merely because it had hired out machinery on a dry-lease basis; since it did not operate the machine or undertake the processing as its own activity, no excise duty liability could attach to it. On that footing, the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90866