https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114932 In a job-work arrangement for steel ingots, the job worker was treated as the actual manufacturer, so any duty on the finished goods could not be demanded from the supplier of raw material. Even if the supplier had not correctly followed Rule 57F(4) and the job-work notification procedure, the duty liability, if any, lay on the manufacturer of the ingots and not on the scrap supplier. The Tribunal also found no established violation with intent to evade duty, so the penalty on the supplier was not sustainable and the adverse findings were set aside. en-us Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 May 2012 13:30:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114932 In a job-work arrangement for steel ingots, the job worker was treated as the actual manufacturer, so any duty on the finished goods could not be demanded from the supplier of raw material. Even if the supplier had not correctly followed Rule 57F(4) and the job-work notification procedure, the duty liability, if any, lay on the manufacturer of the ingots and not on the scrap supplier. The Tribunal also found no established violation with intent to evade duty, so the penalty on the supplier was not sustainable and the adverse findings were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114932