Posted On by &filed under Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi, Tribunal.


Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Cce vs Srikant Fab-Tax (P) Ltd. on 13 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 (74) ECC 349, 2001 (135) ELT 455 Tri Del
Bench: R T Lajja, P Bajaj


ORDER

P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 21.6.2000, the issue relates to the duty liability as job workers, of the appellants, who are engaged in the process of heat setting and stentering of the fabrics received under the cover of challans issued under Rule 57F(4) of the Rules from various manufacturers in June, 1997. They after doing the above-said process, had sent back the fabrics to those very manufacturers from whom they received () without payment of duty. They were served with show cause notice dated 18.11.97 for payment of duty amount of Rs. 94,927. They contested their liability to pay the duty as job workers. But the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand on them through Order-in-Original dated 6.4.98. But in appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned order reversed the same by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of D.K. Processors Pvt. Ltd. Pali v. Commissioner of Customs decided vide Order No. A/36-37/2000 (NB) dated 14.1.2000.

2. The Revenue has comp up in appeal.

3. We have heard both the sides.

4. The Ld. JDR, Shri Ravinder Babu has fairly conceded that the issue relating to the duty liability of the job workers engaged in the process of heat setting and stentering of the fabrics received under Rule 57F(4) of the Rules from the manufacturers and subsequent clearance of the same by them to those very manufacturers, has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. D.K. Processors Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), which has been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) while reversing the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner. In that case, the Tribunal has taken the view that job worker cannot be saddled with the duty liability on the goods received under Rule 57F(4) of the Rules for heat setting and stentering and thereafter returned to the manufacturers, who cleared the same on payment of duty. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, absolving the appellants of the duty liability by reversing the orders-in-original of the Asstt. Collector referred to above, is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any illegal infirmity.

5. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is ordered to be dismissed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.204 seconds.