TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellant. Vimlesh Kumar for the Respondent. ORDER Per Gowri Shankar: Natraj Ceramics & Chemical Inds. Ltd. was supplied quantities of raw bauxite to be calcined by it on job work and subsequently to such job work to be purchased by it. The agreement dated 1.8.1996 between Natraj Ceramics & Chemical Inds. Ltd. and Giriraj Calcine Bauxite & Refractories Pvt. Ltd., the supplier of the raw b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly the issue was not the ownership of the bauxite for availing the exemption but said that there has been an attempt by both parties not to pay duty payable on the calcined bauxite by entering into this arrangement. He, therefore, confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. 2. The contention of the common counsel for the appellants is that what was done by the parties was not contrary to law. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notification he could not now set up a fresh case against the parties concerned. They would have had no occasion to meet it. Even apart from this we do not find merit in the case that the Commissioner has set up. His view is that the supplier of the raw bauxite had availed of exemption contained in Notification 214/86 and the job worker the exemption contained in 67/95 and they have thereby denied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ier of raw material or intermediate products which after processing, would be disposed of in any of the manner specified in it. The claim to it is optional, and the owner of raw material has not exercised it. If the job worker before us had purchased the raw bauxite and calcined it, the benefit of the Notification 67/95 would be available to it. It appears that rather peculiar method of first cond....