Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 717 - HC - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit - Whether the removal of moulds and dies under Rule 57S(8) of the Rules without reversal of credit would be a violation as alleged by the Department - Held that:- Moulds and dies were supplied by the assessee to the job worker and the job worker used their own raw materials along with the moulds and dies supplied by the assessee in the manufacturing of parts according to the design and specification of the assessee. After the parts are so manufactured, central excise duty is paid on the value of raw material, the amortised value of moulds and dies and the job charges and thereafter, the goods are cleared to the assessee for use in the manufacture of washing machines. It is another matter that the assessee claims credit on the duty paid component of the manufactured parts supplied by the job worker. Ultimately, on the clearance of washing machine, duty is paid including all these values. Removal of moulds and dies without payment of duty is in relation to only moulds and dies and not with respect of any other capital goods. It does not impose any condition that the raw materials also should be supplied by the assessee along with the moulds and dies. So long as the permission is granted by the Commissioner for removal of moulds and dies without payment of duty to the job worker, the question of deeming it as an improper clearance does not arise. Decision in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut reported in [1994 (7) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] as had been already extracted supra, the emphasis laid by the Supreme Court is that the Explanation appended to notification on the expression 'job worker' is in relation to the said notification and not otherwise. It, therefore, means, that the term 'job worker' in respect of one notification and the term 'job worker' in relation to Rule 57S(8) should be understood in the context of the provisions of the Modvat Rules. The provisions of Rule 57S(8) clearly mandates that consequent on the permission of the competent authority, moulds and dies should be removed, without payment of duty, to 'job worker'. If such condition has been complied with by the assessee, the Department cannot import any other meaning to disentitle the assessee of the benefit that flow out of Rule 57S(8) of the Rules. When the Department having accepted the decision in the case of Monica Electronics vs Cce reported in [2000 (4) TMI 84 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] without demur, in the present case, on the same set facts, they are not entitled to agitate the same issue with regard to the assessee's claim of removal of moulds and dies without payment of duty following the procedure prescribed under Rule 57S(8) of the Rules. as the issue on double Modvat benefit is concerned, the Revenue has not raised the issue before the first Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.
|