TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging to the appellant were sent to the job worker. The learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the appellants were working under the MODVAT scheme and availed the MODVAT credit in respect of the Aluminium ingots. These aluminium ingots they were rolling in their factory and were using them captively. However, for a brief period, during 22-2-1987 to 10-3- 1987, the appellants rolling mill was not functional and they informed the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities that they would be sending the aluminium ingots to the premises of a job worker, viz. M/s. Dharmadeep Properzi Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., and getting the ingots rolled there and receiving the rolled product back in their factory. He has pleaded that the jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngots received by him. 2. The learned D.R. submitted that at the relevant time the so called job worker could not be treated as a job worker in terms of Notification 214/86 which envisages the manufacture of goods by the job worker, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions and the return of the same without payment of duty to the supplier of the raw material. He has pleaded that since the appellant has not worked under the provisions of Notification 214/86 the question of therefore allowing MODVAT credit to the appellant would not arise. He further pleaded as it is no specific permission under Rule 57F(2) was given to the appellant. 3. We observe there is no dispute that the appellants had for bona fide reasons sent the ingots to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uirements of rules in respect of waste, if any, arising during the course of the manufacture had been complied with. We have held in many cases that MODVAT scheme is a beneficial piece of legislation with a view to mitigate the cascading effect of the duties. It is, therefore, necessary that when the assessees working under a MODVAT scheme commits a procedural infraction, he should not be ruled out for the benefit so long as they are able to show that the inputs have been used as envisaged under Rule 57A and also the other requirements of the rules have been complied with. We, therefore, hold that this is one such case where the authorities should approach the matter in the above light. We observe that in the present case the appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
