https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96981 A job-worker that received fabrics for heat setting and stentering under Rule 57F(3) and returned the processed goods under Rule 57F(4) was not liable to central excise duty on those fabrics. The factual position was undisputed, and the processing was treated as falling within the prescribed job-work procedure. Following its earlier decision on the same issue, the Tribunal found no breach of the rule-based arrangement and no duty liability attaching to the job-worker. The duty demand was therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 08 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:10:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96981 A job-worker that received fabrics for heat setting and stentering under Rule 57F(3) and returned the processed goods under Rule 57F(4) was not liable to central excise duty on those fabrics. The factual position was undisputed, and the processing was treated as falling within the prescribed job-work procedure. Following its earlier decision on the same issue, the Tribunal found no breach of the rule-based arrangement and no duty liability attaching to the job-worker. The duty demand was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96981