https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257054 The Tribunal granted relief to the job worker by waiving the duty demand, interest, and penalty. The recovery process was stayed until the appeal is resolved. This decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 96D and a comparison with a similar case where duty waiver was allowed. The Tribunal found that the job worker did not change the identity of the processed fabrics, and the HDPE coating was done by the principal manufacturer, supporting the job worker's claim for duty waiver. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257054 The Tribunal granted relief to the job worker by waiving the duty demand, interest, and penalty. The recovery process was stayed until the appeal is resolved. This decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 96D and a comparison with a similar case where duty waiver was allowed. The Tribunal found that the job worker did not change the identity of the processed fabrics, and the HDPE coating was done by the principal manufacturer, supporting the job worker's claim for duty waiver. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257054