TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nson(India) as job worker for the manufacture of ceramic glazed frit, which is a intermediate product falling under Chapter 32 of CETA, 1985. The appellant had supplied the raw material namely boric acid, zinc oxiode, borax, soda ash and calcined alumina etc. to the job workers. The appellant had availed the credit on such raw material supplied to the job worker under job worker challans. The job worker processed the raw material and the appellant received the intermediate product namely ceramic glazed frit from the job worker on payment of excise duty, under invoices issued by the job worker. The department entertained a view that as the raw material supplied free, to the job worker, the job worker ought not to have paid excise duty in ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... job worker is availing the exemption in terms of Notification No. 214/86. That, there being no evidence to show that the job worker had availed exemption under 214/86, the department cannot force the availment of benefit of exemption upon the jobworker and deny the credit to the appellant. The Ld.Counsel submitted that the issue stands covered by the following judgments 1. CCE, Ahmedabad-I, Vs Rohan Dyes and intermediaries ltd. 2012(284)ELT-484(Guj) 2. Bright Steel Mac. Fabrics Vs CCE, Ahmedabad-1994(69)ELT-276(Tri) 3. Collector Vs Bengal Paper Mills Co.ltd. 1996(83)ELT A112. 4. Collector Vs Bright Steel Mac Fabrics-1997(94)ELT.A145(SC). 5. Kohinoor Printers Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE, Pondicherry-2015(321)ELT-456(Tri.Chennai) 6. CCE, Pud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the bank account of the appellant though the credit under dispute in Rs. 22,07,682/- 7. On perusal of records it is seen that in a few invoices Notification No .214/86 is seen noted by the job worker. It is the case of appellant that mentioning the notification number was due to mistake and as the invoices specifies the excise duty, the mention of notification number is not of much relevance. It is also not disputed that appellant has not filed an undertaking complying with the condition laid in the Notification No.214/86 so as to avail the exemption. The very same issue came up for consideration in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-I Vs Rohan Dyes & Intermediates Ld. 2012(284) ELT -484(Guj). The Tribunal observed as under; " We do not find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvisage return of inputs after completion of processing resulting in a semi-finished goods or intermediate goods without payment of duty. Therefore, the job-workers in these cases, admittedly are independent manufacturers and they are utilising the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. They are, therefore, entitled to enjoy the concessional benefit of the said notification. As rightly held by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 7222/91, they cannot be compelled to utilise the benefit under Notification No. 214/86" Similar view was taken in Kohinoor Printers(P)Ltd. Vs CCE, Pondichery, 2015(3210 ELT 456( Tri-Chennai) which was maintained by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in....