Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (2) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... credit in respect of certain inputs. Though, the order of the Collector (Appeals) deals with the aspect of valuation, the Department has not come in appeal on valuation aspect and the Respondents have also not filed any cross-objection or cross appeal either with regard to the Department s appeals or with regard to the finding regarding the valuation. Hence, the issue involved in this appeal is only with regard to the modvat credit on certain inputs brought by the respondents. 2. The facts of the case as given by the ld. SDR, Shri Mondal are as follows : The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of coated and printed aluminium foils. They not only manufacture these items on their own but also manufacture these items on job work ba .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... name of the Respondents. The duty paying documents were also not endorsed in favour of the respondents. The goods were not in the original packing. They have not obtained permission under Rule 57F(2) for cutting the aluminium coils into sheets. On the basis of these allegations, the Asstt. Collector gave a finding that the respondents have deliberately not complied with the provisions of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules by obtaining prior permission. Though he agrees that the input materials can be sent directly to the job worker for cutting, before they are received in the respondents factory, he contended that the respondents, even knowing this provision, have not taken the requisite permission and hence it is a deliberate omis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uments are not endorsed in favour of the respondents is not borne out by evidences and he has not discussed it and this portion of his order is not a speaking order and hence he has set aside. He has also held that in so far as the allegation regarding debit of duty in RG 23A Part II instead of PLA, the Asstt. Collector has not mentioned or discussed this aspect of the allegation at all. All the same, another demand on the same issue has been confirmed, presumably, in respect of the same allegation of availment of modvat credit. Hence, he has directed de novo determination of this demand. The present appeal from the revenue is against the aforesaid finding of the Collector (Appeals). 3. Shri Mondal, deligently contended that aluminium coi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondents, does not dispute the facts but only pleads that in the case of glass bottles, initially delivered by the manufacturer of bottles to printer, shown as consignee in the Gate Pass and after printing of the bottles supplied to the manufacturer of aerated water under Gate Pass duly endorsed, they were held to be eligible for modvat credit. He referred to the decision of the North Regional Bench in the case of Amritsar Bottling Co. reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 140 (Tri.). He also pleaded that when there is no allegation that the duty paid materials covered by the Gate Pass (though in the form of cut sheets) were received and utilised in the manufacture of final product, modvat credit cannot be denied. He also submits that the remand or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icated as to how the endorsement is defective. In the circumstances, such a cryptic finding of the Assistant Collector has been rightly rejected by the Collector (Appeals). Now going by the factual position, the main thrust of the allegation is that when they have declared aluminium coils and the Gate Pass also shows the item as aluminium coils, the actual receipt of the input was in the form of aluminium sheets. This is the main crux of the allegation, for which the explanation given is that the supplier of the input materials cuts these coils into sheets so as to facilitate printing and lacquering by the respondents. The Department does not make an allegation that these sheets have not been obtained out of the aluminium coils received on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates