https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53599 Where raw material is received by a job worker under Notification No. 214/86 on the supplier's undertaking to discharge duty on the finished goods, the job worker is not treated as the manufacturer for central excise duty purposes and the duty liability remains with the supplier. On the facts noted, there was also no evidence that the supplier denied receipt of the processed goods. The alleged shortage of finished goods was not established because the panchnama showed nil RG-I balance matching physical verification. The view that a job worker is always the manufacturer was held inapplicable on these facts, and the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:04:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53599 Where raw material is received by a job worker under Notification No. 214/86 on the supplier's undertaking to discharge duty on the finished goods, the job worker is not treated as the manufacturer for central excise duty purposes and the duty liability remains with the supplier. On the facts noted, there was also no evidence that the supplier denied receipt of the processed goods. The alleged shortage of finished goods was not established because the panchnama showed nil RG-I balance matching physical verification. The view that a job worker is always the manufacturer was held inapplicable on these facts, and the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53599