https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109898 Inputs sent to a job worker under the prescribed job-work procedure, processed and returned to the principal manufacturer, did not attract excise duty on the job worker where the governing notification and departmental circulars placed the duty burden on the principal manufacturer. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the scheme under Rule 57F(4) read with Rule 57AC(5) and Notification No. 214/86-C.E. treated the principal manufacturer as responsible for duty discharge. In view of the settled position and the binding effect of the earlier Supreme Court dismissal in the connected matter, the demand and penalty were not sustainable. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109898 Inputs sent to a job worker under the prescribed job-work procedure, processed and returned to the principal manufacturer, did not attract excise duty on the job worker where the governing notification and departmental circulars placed the duty burden on the principal manufacturer. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the scheme under Rule 57F(4) read with Rule 57AC(5) and Notification No. 214/86-C.E. treated the principal manufacturer as responsible for duty discharge. In view of the settled position and the binding effect of the earlier Supreme Court dismissal in the connected matter, the demand and penalty were not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109898