2011 (7) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant : Shri V.S. Sejpal, Advocate Respondent : Shri J.S. Negi, SDR   Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy;   Respondent has a unit in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter heading 33 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited (Now M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited- HUL for short), located in Special Economic Zone, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Commissioner (Appeals) passed in terms of the remand order of this Tribunal.   2. Learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that the show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty only on the ground that the respondent is a job worker and the present appeal filed by the department goes beyond the show cause notice since department s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcular as well as settled law the job worker is the manufacturer. Therefore, it is not necessary that he should purchase raw material and own raw material for availment of credit. In this case, Hindustan Unilever Limited, which has a unit in SEZ had sent the materials to the respondent unit for manufacture and some inputs (packing material) were sent directly on behalf of HUL on which the credit w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, the show cause notice went on totally wrong premise and therefore, I find myself in agreement with the learned Commissioner that on this ground itself the department s appeal is liable to be rejected.   5. Nevertheless, coming to the submission of the revenue that under rule 3(1), respondents was not eligible for availing credit, it has to noted that once the respondent is treated as....