https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767857 CESTAT Chennai held that job work activities do not automatically constitute manufacture requiring excise duty payment. The adjudicating authority failed to address appellant's contentions regarding non-filing of declarations by principal manufacturers under N/N. 214/86 CE, rendering the order liable to be set aside. Revenue failed to prove appellant manufactured dutiable goods, with onus remaining unmet. Extended limitation period invocation was untenable absent evidence of wilful suppression, as appellant acted under bonafide belief their semi-finished goods clearing didn't amount to manufacture. Procedural lapses by principal manufacturers cannot negate substantive benefits to job workers. Appeal allowed, demand barred by limitation. en-us Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:36:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767857 CESTAT Chennai held that job work activities do not automatically constitute manufacture requiring excise duty payment. The adjudicating authority failed to address appellant's contentions regarding non-filing of declarations by principal manufacturers under N/N. 214/86 CE, rendering the order liable to be set aside. Revenue failed to prove appellant manufactured dutiable goods, with onus remaining unmet. Extended limitation period invocation was untenable absent evidence of wilful suppression, as appellant acted under bonafide belief their semi-finished goods clearing didn't amount to manufacture. Procedural lapses by principal manufacturers cannot negate substantive benefits to job workers. Appeal allowed, demand barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767857