9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries, Surat, M/s. Adarsh Rayon & Silk Mills, Surat and M/s. Royal Knitting (P) Limited, Halol. The job workers manufactured nylon knitted fabrics from the nylon yarn supplied by M/s. GSFCL and these fabrics were sent to the appellants for further manufacture of laminated fabrics. The appellants availed the Cenvat credit on the duty of excise paid by M/s. GSFCL on the nylon yarn under Rule 57AB of Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were, however, issued a show cause notice dated 10-2-2000 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Banswara in which it was alleged that during the period from 1-4-2000 to 30-11-2000 they had availed the credit of Rs. 8,01,373/- on the strength of invoices of M/s. GSFCL in respect of nylon filament yarn on receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals), Jaipur, vide his order dated 28-2-2002. 3. This is a stay petition against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Sh. M.P. Devnath, Advocate for the appellants and Sh. S.C. Pushkarna, JDR for the respondents. I have considered the submissions made before me. The ld. Counsel for the appellants is not disputing that the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in intermediate product is available to a manufacturer under Rule 57AB as amended by Notf. No. 51/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-8-2000 provided the job worker is availing the benefit of exemption contained under Notf. No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-86 and the intermediate product is received by the manufacturer for use in or in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions made before me. Admittedly, the job workers of the appellants have not availed the exemption under Notf. No. 214/86-C.E - which is a pre-condition to the entitlement of Cenvat credit under Rule 57AB(1). I also do not find anything in the Board's instruction relied upon by the appellants which waive this essential condition under Rule 57AB(1). As rightly argued by the ld. JDR for the respondents in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, it is held, if the essential pre-condition of the rule/notification is not followed, the facility under the provisions of the same cannot be made available to the claimant. The same principle of law is laid down in the following judgments of the Supreme Court :- (i) M/s. Osram Surya (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
