https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109573 Cixon was held outside Notification No. 21/99 because Heading 2710.19 was excluded, so the job-work procedure under Rule 57F could not be invoked for that material. A jurisdictional objection based on mere reference to Section 11AC and Rule 173Q in the notice was rejected. On duty liability for returned cixon, the fact that the supplier had already paid duty was treated as irrelevant because the manufacturer remains liable under Rule 7, but the crucial factual question whether the received and returned cixon were chemically and characteristically the same was left for limited remand and fresh determination. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:02:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109573 Cixon was held outside Notification No. 21/99 because Heading 2710.19 was excluded, so the job-work procedure under Rule 57F could not be invoked for that material. A jurisdictional objection based on mere reference to Section 11AC and Rule 173Q in the notice was rejected. On duty liability for returned cixon, the fact that the supplier had already paid duty was treated as irrelevant because the manufacturer remains liable under Rule 7, but the crucial factual question whether the received and returned cixon were chemically and characteristically the same was left for limited remand and fresh determination. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109573