https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2632 Rule 96(E) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was read as not compelling a job worker to adopt Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. where exemption was not chosen. The job worker could clear the doubled yarn on payment of duty and use available Modvat credit for that purpose, so denial of credit was unsustainable. Because duty had already been discharged on the processed goods, a further demand on the principal manufacturer was unwarranted, and the extended period could not be invoked absent evidence of intent to evade duty. The impugned appellate orders were set aside and the appeals allowed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2632 Rule 96(E) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was read as not compelling a job worker to adopt Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. where exemption was not chosen. The job worker could clear the doubled yarn on payment of duty and use available Modvat credit for that purpose, so denial of credit was unsustainable. Because duty had already been discharged on the processed goods, a further demand on the principal manufacturer was unwarranted, and the extended period could not be invoked absent evidence of intent to evade duty. The impugned appellate orders were set aside and the appeals allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2632