TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required size did not amount to manufacture and the procedure adopted by the appellants was in contravention of Rule 57F(3)(b) of the Rules and Modvat credit availed by them was required to be reversed for the period 27-8-1991 to 30-6-1992. In the light of the decision in the case of International Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Bihar, in which held that- the Scheme of Modvat permits the person who clears the ultimate final product to take the benefit of the Modvat scheme at the time of clearance of such final product. The manufacturer of the final product would therefore, be entitled not only to adjust the credit on the inputs supplied by it to the intermediate purchaser but also to the credit for the duty paid by the intermediate purchaser on its prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants had filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 180/97 dated 15-5-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore rejecting their appeal and confirming disallowance of Modvat credit of Rs.13,79,498/- and penalty of Rs.2,000/- in terms of provisions of Rule 57F(2) and confirming order-in-original passed by the Asst. Commissioner by which the original authority withdrew the permission for job work given under provisions of Rule 57F(1). Disallowance of Modvat credit was on the ground that appellants had not followed the procedure under Rule 57F(2) of the CE Rules. Since the lacquer had not been brought into the appellants factory but, were utilised by the job worker for lacquering polyester film, the appellants claimed Modva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that there was no question of law involved in the matter as the issue is settled by several judgments of the Apex Court and held that the petitioners are not entitled to the Modvat credit as there was substantial violation of the rules. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner approached this Court seeking reference of the above noted questions to this Court for consideration. 5. Shri Parameshwaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequent order of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a similar matter in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v Collector of Central Excise , New Delhi in Final Order No. A/77-78/2000-NB, dated 4-2-2000 in Appeal Nos. E/460 470/94-NB [2000 (118) E.L.T. 43 (Trubunal)] holding that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared on payment of duty. This view is strengthen by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd., supra wherein the Tribunal held, relying upon the decision in the case of CCE v. Roshan Tin Printer , 1994 (74) E.L.T. 325, that as there is no dispute that the duty paid material received by the supplier have come to the hands of the user manufacturer after some processing the procedural non-compliance cannot be held against the user manufacturer for denying the substantive benefit of Modvat credit. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner , 1995 (55) E.L.T. 437 that "there are conditions and conditions. Same may be substantive conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
