TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urai manufacture certain motor vehicle parts falling under T.I. 68 along with other excisable goods. A considerable portion of motor vehicle parts so manufactured were cleared without payment of duty by virtue of Notification No. 167/79-C.E., dated 19-4-1979 as amended by Notification No. 187/79- C.E., dated 10-5-1979. This notification exempts those motor vehicle parts falling under T.I. 68 and are intended for use of further manufacture of excisable goods captively from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon and provided that where such use is in a factory of another manufacturer this exemption is subject to the observance of procedure set out in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules, 1944. M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai effected cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. 2. Arguing on the appeal Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, the learned Senior Departmental Representative contended that the Collector (Appeals) order was erroneous. The Department is demanding the duty in this case from the respondents on the ground that the goods were cleared without payment of duty on AR 3A countersigned by the respondents only indicating the goods were to be used for further manufacture at the consignee s premises in terms of Notification 167/79 whereas in fact the consignment did not reach the destination and the fact of such receipt had not been intimated within 90 days. The learned Senior Departmental Representative, therefore, submitted that the objective of the notification granting the exemption was thus not fulfilled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply. Rule 173N is also not applicable as it relates to Chapter VII. The learned Counsel further urged that Rule 192 under Chapter X is a provision for remission of duty by a notification and is not a rewarehousing provision. It requires the users of material obtained under Chapter X to have account for its receipts and use and this responsibility rests on the users from the time the goods leave the factory of manufacturer from where the goods are obtained. There is no provision in Chapter X to say that where the goods are un-accounted, the manufacturer of the originating factory should pay duty. The learned Counsel cited and relied upon the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Madras Radiators Pressings Ltd., reported in 1988 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified by the Department on their own also by reference to the receipt and accounts and utilization of the materials which are prescribed for the purpose at the beneficiary s end namely the RG 16 Register showing the quantity of excisable goods received and used in the manufacturing process and Return RT 11 submitted by the beneficiary showing the nature and quantity of the material received and utilised and the commodity manufactured. In another decision of the Tribunal in the case of BajajAuto Ltd., Pune v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T 970 (Tribunal), the Tribunal has given a clear finding that the user manufacturer of the material obtained under Chapter X has to pay duty. The Tribunal observed as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
