https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115849 A job worker could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. because the notification's undertakings and duty-related obligations were cast on the raw-material supplier, not on the job worker; non-compliance by the supplier could not defeat the exemption. An alleged simultaneous availment of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and Modvat credit also could not support demand or penalty where that allegation was absent from the show cause notice, and the findings travelled beyond its scope. The impugned order was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 May 2024 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115849 A job worker could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. because the notification's undertakings and duty-related obligations were cast on the raw-material supplier, not on the job worker; non-compliance by the supplier could not defeat the exemption. An alleged simultaneous availment of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and Modvat credit also could not support demand or penalty where that allegation was absent from the show cause notice, and the findings travelled beyond its scope. The impugned order was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115849