TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (10) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the manufacture of Nozzle, Nozzle holders, Injectors etc. falling under Chapter sub-heading 8409.00 of the CETA. The appellants issued their inputs, viz. steel bars, to the job worker under Rule 57F (2) and got manufactured hollow screws out of the said material. On receipt of the same, in their factory they consumed it captively for the manufacture of final products injectors or sold the same to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. They did not file any classification list or price list of the said hollow screws in respect of sales to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra as it was without payment of duty thereon and this was for a period from October 1985 to October 1989. This was investigated by the department and a show cause notice dated 19-12-1990 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of computing aggregate value in terms of Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as both categories of the goods could have been in one factory only, namely the factory of the job worker. It is emphasised by the department that the Collector's approach in passing the impugned order goes against the Trade Notice. If the appellants are required to pay duty then the appellants may be permitted to avail Modvat on the inputs manufactured as final product in an alternative way. As against this the ld. DR invited our attention to Notification 305/77, dated 5-11-1977. Therefore, if the inputs are supplied by the principal manufacturer for the manufacture of any goods on job works basis then the same would not be entitled to small scale exemption unles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent by their own challan instead of challan under Rule 57F(2) which is a technical lapse. As far as penalty is concerned they stated that there was no mensria in this case as it was done under the bonafide belief. Here it is an admitted fact that they have sent the goods to a job worker. Nobody can compel the job worker to take the Modvat exemption. If he does not take, it is his own business. The argument of the learned DR would show that the goods should be transferred to the job worker absolutely. She tried to state the reading of the Trade Notice 98/88 at page 22. She emphasizes the fact that the goods would not be entitled to small scale exemption unless principal manufacturer is entitled to small scale industries exemption. She also r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt case as injectors. It is totally unrealistic and absurd to say, as has been held by the lower authority, that the job worker conducting activities under Rule 57F(2) is required to observe Excise formalities and pay duty due on such goods. In our view this is a wrong approach. The Trade Notice specifically mentions about the exemption. The insistence of the first paragraph of the Trade Notice of the ld. DR is misplaced. It has been specifically stated that the inputs are supplied by the principal manufacturer, i.e. the appellants herein. For the manufacture of any goods on job work basis the same would not be entitled for small scale exemption unless the principal manufacturer himself is entitled to small scale industries exemption. Even ....