2018 (2) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....work activity in terms of Notification No. 83/94 CE dt. 11.04.94. Pursuant to investigation they were issued show cause notice alleging that the benefit of said notification is not available to the Appellant as the principal manufacturers denied to have supplied raw material (scrap paper) to the Appellant for jobwork and that they have purchased M.G. Kraft paper from Appellant on outright sale basis. Reliance was placed upon the statement of the parties for whom the Appellant was shown to have done the jobwork. Further in case of one of the entities M/s Raj Sales Corporation it was alleged that the said unit is dummy unit of the Appellant. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Appellant approached the Tribunal who rema....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....added inspite of acceptance of the eligibility to the same by the adjudicating authority and that the process should have been considered cum duty and demand was reducible to that extent. 3. Shri S. V. Nair, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. We find that the demand has been made against the Appellant on the ground that they have wrongly claimed the benefit of exemption notification no. 83/94 by showing that they have done jobwork activity of manufacture of kraft paper on raw material supplied by the principal manufacturer. The adjudicating authority has relied upon the statem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n settled in various judgments as cited by the learned Counsel that while determining the duty, the cum duty benefits should be extended to the assessee. We also find that the adjudicating authority have not examined the fact whether there is a suppression of facts or otherwise. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was also not considered properly. 6. We therefore consider it fit to remand back the case to the adjudicating authority to consider the case afresh after granting the opportunity of cross examining the persons who were not made available for cross examination as well as examining the record and accounts of the Appellant as to how the alleged jobwork activity has been considered in their books. We also hold that the adjudicatin....