9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and this order sets aside classification list No. 49/91-92 effective from 1-3-1992 approved by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector had approved the classification of the FRP bodies under sub-heading 8707.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff and held that the goods were liable to nil rate of duty as jeeps are received from M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. under Rule 57F(2) and that no duty is payable by M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. as M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. are paying duty on the value of the jeep including the value of the FPR bodies. Appeal No. E/1298/96-B1 is in respect of the impugned order No. P/107/96, dated 23-2-1996 upholding duty demand consequent to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milarly, with the coming into effect of Modvat procedure, permission was sought for carrying out the same movement of goods under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the same was granted. Some show cause notices were also issued in 1990 and 1991 to M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. demanding duty on the FRP bodies and these proceedings were dropped by the Assistant Collector in August, 1991. We are not reproducing all the details of the proceedings on this issue between the manufacturers and the Central Excise Authorities as it is elaborately reproduced in the impugned Order P-337/94, dated 10-10-94. Suffice it to mention that the procedure followed had been mutually agreed upon between the manufacturers and the Central Excise Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us is quite narrow and does not require us to go into the question whether sorting is necessary for the bulk tea to become dutiable. The issue is whether the goods were cleared by the respondents in contravention of Rule 56B or not. Collector has observed that once the department had permitted such a movement, no allegation of contravention of that rule could be levelled against the assessee. In holding so he is quite correct. The department may have made an error in extending the facility, but having extended it, the department's right to question the removal following the permission is lost. The Collector is also correct in observing that since the duty was paid by the consignee unit, the same cannot be demanded from the consignor u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure, the entire movement of goods should have been under Modvat credit procedure and the appellants would have taken credit of duty on the raw materials used in the manufacture of fibre glass bodies and used the same for payment of duty on the FRP bodies. The duty thus paid also would have been available as Modvat credit to M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. for payment of duty on jeeps. 5. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Counsel, submitted emphatically that the impugned orders are grossly unjust as they upset a mutually agreed procedure. He also submitted that the revision sought to be made also would be futile as Modvat credits at every stage will have to be given to the manufacturers if the revision is carried out. 6. Opposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
