https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347394 Duty demand, confiscation and penalties on a job-worker were unsustainable where the goods were manufactured under Notification No. 84/94 and the prescribed exemption procedure had been followed with an undertaking accepted by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The manufacturer was entitled to rely on that departmental acceptance, and a later Revenue view that the principal was only a trader could not retrospectively create liability against the job-worker. On that basis, the common order below was annulled and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347394 Duty demand, confiscation and penalties on a job-worker were unsustainable where the goods were manufactured under Notification No. 84/94 and the prescribed exemption procedure had been followed with an undertaking accepted by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The manufacturer was entitled to rely on that departmental acceptance, and a later Revenue view that the principal was only a trader could not retrospectively create liability against the job-worker. On that basis, the common order below was annulled and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347394