Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd. vs Cce on 17 April, 2006
In this connection, this bench in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd v. CCE, Tirupathi has clearly held that the duty liability is squarely on the shoulders of the raw material supplier and not on job worker. It has also been held that the demand of duty for the reason that raw material supplier has not followed the provisions of Notification No. 214/86 CE, is not correct. In that case, the demand was set aside. This ratio of the decision will be squarely applicable to the present case also. In the present case, the principal manufacturer should have followed the conditions of Notification No. 83/94. It is not correct to say that he has a choice to opt for a notification and he did not opt for this notification. If he had not opted for the Notification, the next course would be for him to discharge the duty liability especially when the principal manufacturer had availed the modvat benefit and also sold the goods. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the demand. We have also held that in this case, there is no justification for invoking the longer period. In view of the above findings, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. We set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
1