2013 (9) TMI 839

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (P) Ltd. for conversion into re-rolled products on job work basis. During the period 1997-1998 (4/97 to 7/97) the entire products or re-rolled products received back from the job worker have been cleared as such at NIL rate of duty under small scale exemption Notification No. 16/97, dated 1-4-1997 as amended. As per Notification No. 214/86, dated 25-3-1986 as amended, the goods manufactured by a job worker on job work basis are to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products on which duty of Excise is payable either in whole or part. As the appellant cleared the re-rolled products as such without payment of duty claiming exemption under Notification No. 16/97, dated 1-4-1997, the jurisdictional Supdt. of Central Excise, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant had made substantial compliance of the law. The mistake committed by the appellant was purely a technical one and for this purpose the appellant should not be penalized by denying the exemption. 3. The learned DR submitted that the final products namely, re-rolled steel products were eligible for exemption but ingots manufactured by the appellant and sent to the job worker was not covered by the exemption Notification and should have been cleared on payment of duty. Further he submitted that the ingots could not have been sent under Notification No. 214/86, dated 25-3-1986 in view of the fact that the only inputs on which the Cenvat credit has been taken, it can be sent to a job worker under the Notification. In this case, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le to pay duty. During the proceedings before the lower authorities, the appellant had made a claim that if a declaration under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules was not followed and the appellant was not eligible for movement of goods/inputs under Notification No. 214/86, the duty liability rests on the job worker. Therefore, the show cause notice cannot be sustained. We find considerable force in these arguments advanced before the lower authorities and also incorporated in the Memorandum of the Appeal filed before us. Once the Revenue took a view that the inputs could not have been sent to a job worker under Notification No. 214/86 and the process undertaken by the job worker amounted to manufacture and resulted in final products n....