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

....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 remanded back the case to the adjudicating auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y 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 statements of such principal manufacturers some of whom h....