https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250491 Fabrics moved to a job-worker for processing under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 remained part of the supplier's credit chain, so the duty burden did not shift to the processor merely because the goods were sent out for job work and returned after processing. Rule 4(6) was treated as the mechanism for duty-paid clearance only where goods were not to be returned and were cleared from the job-worker's premises. The absence of coverage under Notification No. 214/86-CE did not alter that position. On that basis, duty liability rested with the supplier, and the demand on the job-worker was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250491 Fabrics moved to a job-worker for processing under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 remained part of the supplier's credit chain, so the duty burden did not shift to the processor merely because the goods were sent out for job work and returned after processing. Rule 4(6) was treated as the mechanism for duty-paid clearance only where goods were not to be returned and were cleared from the job-worker's premises. The absence of coverage under Notification No. 214/86-CE did not alter that position. On that basis, duty liability rested with the supplier, and the demand on the job-worker was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250491