2011 (9) TMI 867

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri S.R. Meena, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Ld. Counsel submits that the appellant is a job worker for the period 1993-94 and the job worked goods were not liable to duty following Circular No. 306/22/97-CX., dated 20-3-1997. She also submits that job workers were exempt from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. According to the practice of the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to satisfy the authority about suffering of the duty on the finished goods. No evidence was available to show that the job worked goods were used in manufacture of duty paying goods and third condition in the Notification to the effect that the ultimate manufacturer shall discharge the liability of the job worked goods was not available according to his perception. Therefore, he held that when th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have stated in the summary manner aforesaid. 6. We have also looked into the Circular No. 306/22/97-CX., dated 20-3-1997. That Circular categorically states, that duty liability is dischargeable by manufacturer of final goods and not by job worker if the goods are received for job work under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Circular is subordinate to the legislative mandate i....