https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438124 Under the job-work exemption scheme, the procedural undertaking was required from the supplier of raw materials, not the job worker. Non-furnishing of that undertaking by the supplier could not, by itself, be used to deny the exemption or fasten central excise duty, interest, or penalty on the job worker when the goods were processed and returned within the job-work chain. Prior rulings were distinguished because they involved demands on the principal manufacturer rather than the job worker. On that basis, the demand, interest, and penalty were held unsustainable against the job worker. en-us Tue, 03 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 May 2023 22:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438124 Under the job-work exemption scheme, the procedural undertaking was required from the supplier of raw materials, not the job worker. Non-furnishing of that undertaking by the supplier could not, by itself, be used to deny the exemption or fasten central excise duty, interest, or penalty on the job worker when the goods were processed and returned within the job-work chain. Prior rulings were distinguished because they involved demands on the principal manufacturer rather than the job worker. On that basis, the demand, interest, and penalty were held unsustainable against the job worker. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438124