2023 (7) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese goods, they make use of Fire Retardant Fabric which is made by Coating the fabrics with certain specialised imported chemicals for providing fire retardant property. The appellant imported goods duty free under Notification No. 52/2003-CUS dated-March 31, 2003. The goods imported included the fire retardant chemicals. Since the appellants did not have the facility of weaving fabrics within their factory they applied for permission to the Jurisdictional Development Commissioner for job work by certain associated manufacturers including M/s. JCT Phagwara. The permission in terms of para 4 (iii) of the Notification No. 52/2003-CUS was granted by the Development Commissioner. The appellant sent certain chemicals imported by availing benefi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owing the same, the appeal is to be allowed. 4. Heard the ld. A.R. for the Revenue, who reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the appellant's own case, this Tribunal has observed as under : "8. The Notification No. 52/03 provides for import of various goods for use in the manufacture of goods in 100% Export Oriented Unit for the purpose of Excise Appeal No. 272/2010 6 export. As per terms of this notification, the appellant imported various goods for use in the manufacture of Fire Retardant garments. Para No. 4 (3 iii) of the said Notification permits the imported goods, to be taken outside the EOU for certain permissible processes including job work. Afte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....c is not supplied by the appellant, the appellant's claim is that term 'job work' would cover it. Excise Appeal No. 272/2010. 11. `The purchase of fabrics by applicant from job worker on which coating is done is evident from the invoices issued by the job workers to the appellant. The fact remains that if the fabrics had been sent to the appellant by job worker in terms of the invoices issued, the same will have to be returned back to the same job worker for the activity of coating of fire retardant chemicals. It is submitted that such movement of fabrics would be wasteful of the transportation cost. 12. The appellant has cited several case laws to support the argument that the expression 'job work' does not require that each and ever....