https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783070 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant-manufacturer's dispatch of imported goods to a job worker for manufacture of the final products did not violate condition (3) of Customs Notification No. 73/2006-Cus. The Tribunal interpreted "own use" to include manufacture through a job worker's facilities, relying on a coordinate bench ruling on a similar notification and a supporting Public Notice. There was no allegation or finding that the goods were sold to the job worker. As the notification did not prohibit processing by a job worker, the demand and adverse findings in the impugned order were set aside and the exemption benefit restored. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 14:16:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783070 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant-manufacturer's dispatch of imported goods to a job worker for manufacture of the final products did not violate condition (3) of Customs Notification No. 73/2006-Cus. The Tribunal interpreted "own use" to include manufacture through a job worker's facilities, relying on a coordinate bench ruling on a similar notification and a supporting Public Notice. There was no allegation or finding that the goods were sold to the job worker. As the notification did not prohibit processing by a job worker, the demand and adverse findings in the impugned order were set aside and the exemption benefit restored. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783070