Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (12) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the counsel appearing for both the sides were ad idem that the matter between the parties required re-consideration and that the Tribunal had not examined the matter in the right prospective. 2. By the remand order of the Tribunal made on 12-12-2001, which has been set aside by the High Court, the Tribunal in Paragraph 3 of the order upheld the contention of the assessee that under the provisions of Rule 57(l)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the inputs in respect of which the Modvat credit had been allowed may be removed from factory "as such"  for home consumption or export, subject to the condition that the duty of excise shall not be less than the amount of credit that was allowed in respect of such inputs. The Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pection. 4. The assessee contended that the manufacturing activity was done on these two items, as detailed in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of their reply in which it was stated that these castings, as received could not be used without the operations carried out by the appellant such as broaching and drilling on ROFs, and outer turning, four-hole drilling and tapping on GSDs. 5. The Commissioner on the basis of the material on record came to a finding that the appellant had mis-declared the critical raw material in their classification declarations, which were RDFs and GSDs and not their castings. It was held that even if they had received them in "semi-finished" state, the processes involved did not bringing about a new product. It was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s was undertaken as per the stand taken by the Revenue. It was submitted that, in any event, the duty paid on the finished products was more than the Modvat credit availed by the appellant and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 57F(1), even if the removal was to be treated of the inputs "as such", no liability arose on the part of the appellant to pay any further duty amount. Furthermore, since the amount of duty paid was higher than the Modvat credit availed, there could be no intention to evade duty and, therefore, the extended period was erroneously invoked. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Hon' ble the Supreme Court Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad v. Na .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut in relation to ROFs (semi-finished) to make them more suitable for use by the customers. These were used by one of leading manufacturers of automobile. The other item GSD castings were also subjected to the manufacturing processes of outer turning, hole drilling and tapping. The fact that processes such as broaching etc. were undertaken on ROFs and turning and drilling were undertaken in relation to GSDs, is amply borne out from the production log books of the relevant periods which indicate the nature of the manufacturing process as well as the machine on which it was done and the operators 'names, as also the quantity of the GSDs and ROFs subjected to such processes. It is not disputed that these production log books were before the Re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yment of duty of excise, such duty of excise shall be the amount of credit that has been availed in respect of such inputs under Rule 57A. Therefore, the rule contemplated removal of inputs in respect of which a credit of duty had been allowed where they are not used in relation to manufacture of final products with a condition that on their removal, the excise duty shall be paid to the tune of the credit availed under Rule 57A for such inputs. In the present case, admittedly by the excise duty paid on the ROFs/GSDs removed as finished goods was higher than the Modvat credit availed on these inputs. Therefore, there was no liability to pay additional duty when these goods were removed. Even if it were to be held that no process was undertak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates