https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331544 In a recognised job work arrangement under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, where iron ore was processed into iron ore concentrate slurry for return to the principal manufacturer, the duty liability was held not to shift to the job worker merely because the activity amounted to manufacture. The analysis applied earlier circulars and precedents under the predecessor Rule 57(F)(4) to confirm that, in such arrangements, the principal manufacturer remains liable for central excise duty. The appellant was therefore not liable to pay duty as the job worker. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jan 2017 11:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331544 In a recognised job work arrangement under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, where iron ore was processed into iron ore concentrate slurry for return to the principal manufacturer, the duty liability was held not to shift to the job worker merely because the activity amounted to manufacture. The analysis applied earlier circulars and precedents under the predecessor Rule 57(F)(4) to confirm that, in such arrangements, the principal manufacturer remains liable for central excise duty. The appellant was therefore not liable to pay duty as the job worker. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331544