2014 (8) TMI 441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondent : Shri Navneet, Additional Commissioner (AR) PER : P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AT/M-III/53/04 dated 30/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-III. Vide the impugned order, the learned appellate authority has upheld the confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 4,11,801/- along with interest thereon an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was confirmed by the adjudicating and appellate authorities. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 permits a manufacturer to remove inputs as such or partially processed to a job-worker for further process, repair or reconditioning or for any other purpose and to bring back the same within a peri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad 2009 (245) ELT 871 where, in similar circumstances, it was held by the Tribunal that, when the goods are removed under Rule 4(5)(a) procedure, the job-worker is not liable to discharge any excise duty liability notwithstanding the fact that the goods are not specified in Notification 214/86-CE. The ratio of the said decisions would apply to the facts of the presen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. As held by us in appellant's own case and also in Trico Process Pvt. Ltd. and Akash Fashion Prints (P) Ltd. cases (supra), the liability to pay duty in respect of goods moved under Rule 4(5)(a) is on the supplier of the goods and not on the job-worker. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the process fabrics are not i....