2001 (12) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. The latter company sent to the appellant short length of pipes, out of which the appellant manufactured couplings, fitted them on to other pipes with which they were to be put, and returned the assembly to Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. The appellant did not pay any duty on this job work, claiming the exemption contained in Notification 214/86. It also did not pay any duty on the couplings that it manufactured on its own account, claiming the exemption contained in Notification 16/97. This notification provides exemption to goods of specified value subject to fulfilment of the various conditions contained in that notification. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to demand duty to both the couplings claimed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....final products liable to duty as such. It is not necessary for us to examine this claim in order to dispose of the appeal. As we have noted, the notice by no means alleges that the demand for duty is based on the ground that the appellant undertook was not job work. The Commissioner's order in this regard is very clear. He says in paragraph 35 "The Noticees are also manufacturing coupling for M/s. MSL and also engaged in cold drawing of tubes under the provisions of Rule 57F(4), and have claimed exemption under Notification 214/86, dt. 15-4-86, which exempts from duty the goods manufactured on job work basis. I further find that the show cause notice also mentions that M/s. JDIL are doing job work for M/s. MSL but as the monogram API, along....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ISO standards. It permits use of its markings upon products which bear to its specifications thus ensuring a level of quality which the buyers can rely upon. It is certainly not the Department's claim that the API is a manufacturer or trader. Had this been the case, it cannot be said that the use of the logo "API" indicates connection "in the course of trade" between the goods which bear the logo and "API". The position that the Counsel for the appellant puts analogus to the goods bearing the initials of Bureau of Indian Standards, Bureau of Standards of United Kingdom. Therefore there was no basis for the denial of benefit of the notification. 6. The Commissioner has not dealt with the contention that the appellant raised before hi....