TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the same without payment of duty. It is an admitted position that the raw material was sent to the appellants under the private challans of the sender and after conversion, the aluminium castings were sent back to the sender of raw material by the appellant under their private challans. As such by holding the appellant as manufacturer of the castings, the demand has been confirmed against them. 2. The appellants have strongly contended that the aluminium ingots were sent by their supplier and they have simply undertaken the job work by converting the same into aluminium castings. The same have been duly returned by them to the supplier of the inputs, who has utilised the same in the manufacture of their final product which has been cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has observed as under :- According to then Rule 57F(3), the principal manufacturer and job worker were required to comply with certain statutory requirements viz. intimation to jurisdictional Asst. Collector before removing such inputs/ semi-processed goods for further manufacture; issuance of challans in Annexure 84 for movement of inputs/partially process goods and its subsequent return to the parent factory and maintenance of accounts of removal and receipts of the same in Annexures 86 and 87 as prescribed in part 5 of CE Manual, 1994-95. In the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned goods do not relate to any primary manufacturer because the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals), the provisions of Rule 57F(3) required a detailed procedure to be followed by the sender of the raw material as also by the job-worker. Such procedure cannot be held of a technical nature. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (T) = RLT-LB-CEGAT-1403, while interpreting the provisions of Rule 57G have observed that the Modvat provisions laying down a procedure to be followed cannot be held to be mere technicalities. In the present matter it is not a case where a minor procedural lapse has taken place. Admittedly the raw material sender has not filed any declaration with the Central Excise Officers having jurisdiction over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
