2019 (3) TMI 941

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant: Mr. J.C. Patel & Rahul Gajera (Advocate) For Respondent: Mr. Sameer Chitkara (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair This is a case of recovery of erroneous refund under Section 11A on the ground that the appellant have neither received the inputs covered under the duty paying cenvatable documents nor sent to the job worker for getting the final product manufactured, therefore, the credit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rker and it was observed that the job worker was authorized to carry out only process specified under para 4 of the Notification No. 21/04-CE(NT) and not for manufacturing of final product. He submits that the demand for recovery of refund was raised only on the ground that the appellant have not received the inputs which are covered under the duty paying invoice on which rebate claim was sanction....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re sent for job work for manufacturing of export goods. However the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand mainly on the ground that the process carried out by the job worker is amount to manufacture whereas as per para 4 of notification 21.2004-CE(NT) the job worker are authorized only to carry out the activity such as test, repairs, refining, reconditioning or manufacture of intermediate pr....