TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using their parts also. At the time of discharge of the duty-liability on the said Floor Plate Assembly, the value of the parts received free of cost from M/s. TELCO, was not being included in the assessable value of the final product and the duty was being paid only on the job charges and the value of the components/materials used by them. The Revenue entertained a view that the value of the parts supplied by M/s. TELCO is liable to be included in the assessable value of the final product, even though the appellants were receiving the said inputs from M/s. TELCO under the provisions of Rule 57F(2). Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 23-11-1993 raising a demand of duty of Rs. 2,49,628.50 for the period from 6-9-1993 to 18-10-1993, was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch as the issue was discussed at length by the Tribunal in the appellants own case and an adverse finding was given against them, there are no merits in the appeal and following the ratio of the earlier order, the same should be rejected. 4. After giving our careful consideration to the issue involved and the submissions made from both sides, we find that M/s. TELCO was clearing the inputs under the provisions of Rule 57F(2), after getting the requisite permission from their jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities and after following the due procedure, to the appellants for further utilization in the manufacture of Excavator Floor Plate Assembly. The appellants were using the said parts so sent by M/s. TELCO along with their own parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of inputs as such or partially processed inputs for the purpose of manufacture of intermediate products and return of the same for further use in the manufacture of final products. The Appellants chose to remove the floor plate assembly, manufactured out of the inputs received under Rule 57F(2) and their own materials, on payment of duty. Once they chose to clear the goods on payment of duty, they have to discharge the burden of duty under the law. It is settled law that duty has to be paid on the intrinsic value of the goods. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) that assessable value of the processed fabrics at the hand of the processors would be the value of grey fabri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LCO as Modvat credit. However, we find that the factual position is that the inputs were not removed by M/s. TELCO under Rule 57F(1). The same were removed under the provisions of Rule 57F(2), after availing the Modvat credit of Duty paid on the same. As such, a decision cannot be based upon the alternate routes which M/s. TELCO might have availed. We are also unable to accept the appellants contention that in case of duty confirmed against the appellants, they should be allowed to take the Modvat credit of Duty paid on the inputs supplied by M/s. TELCO for the simple reason that M/s. TELCO have already availed the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on such inputs. As such, when the inputs came to the appellants factory, they were robb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
