COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. M. TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order of Commissioner vide which he has reversed the Order -in -Original of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,11/831.33 on the respondents.

(2.) THE respondents are job -workers and they are engaged in the carrying out process of heat setting and stentering of fabrics, falling under Chapter 55 of the Schedule appended to the CETA. They received the fabrics for this job under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules and returned the same to the manufacturers who supplied them. They were served with the show cause notice dated 3 -9 -1996 for having cleared the goods without payment of duty. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 3,11,831.33 on them after rejecting their version that they were not liable to pay duty being the job -workers. This order of the Additional Commissioner was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned order by following the ratio of the law laid down by Tribunal in M. Tax and Anr. v. CCE [2000 (39) RLT 1091]. Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal.

(3.) WE have heard both the sides. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents, as a job -workers received the goods (fabrics) for heat setting and stentering from the manufacturers and after doing the job, they returned the goods to them. No violation of provisions of Rules 57F(3) and 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be said to had been done by them. The case of the respondents is fully covered by the ratio of the law laid down in M. Tax and another (supra) referred by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order wherein the Tribunal has taken the view in similar circumstances that the job -workers would not be liable to pay the duty on the processed fabrics when they had returned the same after doing the work of heat setting and stentering under Rule 57F(3)/57F(4) of the Rules. Therefore view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) while reversing the Order -in -Original of the Additional Commissioner, that the respondents were not liable to discharge the duty on the processed fabrics, as a job -workers, cannot be said to be erroneous or incorrect in law. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is ordered to be dismissed.