2014 (12) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8-3-2013 in terms of which a demand of Rs. 74,68,635/- was confirmed against the Appellants along with equal mandatory penalty. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under : The appellants were engaged in doing the job work for M/s. Diesel Loco Modernization Works, Patiala which involved the following : (i)      Case Hardening & Tempering of Piston Pins. (ii)    Case Hardening & Tempering of Cam Rollers. (iii)   Machining of Pinions. (iv)   Case Carburizing and Hardening of Bull Gears. (v)     Complete Heat Treatment Process inclusive of stress relieving & tempering process, machining, finish grinding of Bull Gear. They were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udgments to this effect. As regards the availability of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. in the absence of the undertaking to be given by the supplier, they referred to the judgment of India Fabricators v. CCE, Trichy - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 339 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein it is stated that the question of denying the benefit of the Notification to the appellants who is a job worker for the contravention, if any, committed by the supplier of the raw material does not arise and consequently the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. cannot be denied to the appellant. Similarly, in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-II v. Bharat Foundry - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 561 (Tri.-Ahmd.) in the context of an exemption Notification No. 84/94-C.E. with similar requirement it was....