2004 (9) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) are engaged in the activities of body building for motor vehicles and fabrication of fuel tanks and base plates. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- 2. The appellants undertook on job work basis, fabrication of fuel tanks and base plates for dumper bodies for the principal manufacturers M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., and M/s. Tatra Udyog Lt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demanded. The adjudicating authority held that in terms of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, the appellants should have included cost of the raw material supplied by the customers. He also held that the appellants were liable for penalty under section 11AC on account of suppression of facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal No. 557/02, dated 24-9-2002, upheld the Order-in-Original p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....k. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Tirupati Fabrics and Industries Ltd., reported in 2001 (46) RLT 8 relying on the Larger Bench decision has held that duty has to be charged on the principal manufacturer and not the job worker as otherwise clause 2 of Rule 57F(4) become superfluous inasmuch as duty will be charged twice on the same goods once from the....