2014 (4) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for others who have such work to be got done. They have three categories of customers. The first category of customers are the manufacturers registered with the Central Excise who pay duty on excisable goods manufactured by them. The second category of customers are those manufacturers who are SSI units and are not registered but are availing exemption under SSI exemption notification. The third category of customers are traders and contractors, etc., who do not fall under either of the categories above. The appellants claim exemption in respect of goods manufactured on job work basis and cleared to third category of customers. As regards the first category, it was the appellants claim that the benefit of Notification No.214/2006 was avai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant is not eligible for the benefit. 3. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Salem Weld Mesh: 2007 (218) E.L.T. 405 (Tri.-Chennai) and in the case of Bharat Foundry: 2009 (246) E.L.T. 561 (Tri.-Ahmd.). In the case of Bharath Foundry, it was held that once the goods have been supplied under challan and properly accounted for by both the principal manufacturer and the job worker, the benefit of Notification No.83/94 CE cannot be denied on the ground that there was no undertaking given by the principal manufacturer. In the case of Salem Weld Mesh also, a similar view was taken. It has to be noted that in the case of Bharath Foundry, the author of the order was one of the Members of this Bench. We ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lier. Further, he also submits that if the conditions of Notification are not fulfilled, the benefit cannot be extended. Ongoing through the impugned order and the relevant paragraphs brought to our notice by the learned AR, we find that in paragraph 4, there is a clear submission and Tribunal has taken note of the same. In that case that there was no dispute that raw materials were received by the job worker without any challan and therefore there was no ground to hold that the appellants sincerely believed that they were operating under Notification No.214/86-CE. Further, it was also submitted in that case that there was no explanation as to why the raw materials were received by them without any challans. Since the materials were receive....