TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts. [Order]. - The appellant filed the appeal against the Order No. 85/95, dated 31-7-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi whereby the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi confirmed the demand of Rs. 36,378.35 p on the appellant under Rule 9(1) read with Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellant under Rule 173Q of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at they had retained the 2672.9 kgs. of pure aluminium ingots out of the quantity sent to them by the appellants for conversion under 57F(2) challans for consideration of the cost of the conversion and that cost of silicon and copper added by them from their own account. On the basis of these facts show cause notice was issued to the appellant. After considering the reply and argument ld. Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lieu of job work charges. This procedure is inadmissible under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also reiterated the finding arrived at by the ld. Commissioner. 4. Heard both sides. The appellant admitted this fact that they allowed the job-worker to retain the aluminium equivalent to the quantity of copper silicon and the job work charges. In these circumstances, the ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions of Rule 57F(2) and their having admitted that a part of inputs were retained by the job-worker as a price for job-work done on inputs. Their contention that the job-worker remained liable for payment of duty also does not hold any ground in view of the provisions made under Law in that regard. Further, the ld. Commissioner also not accepted the appellants contention that the show cause notic....