TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 in Appeal Nos. E/2850 to 2853 of 1990 and restore those appeals back to file of CESTAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of the appellant and Respondent No. 5-Tribunal is directed to take fresh decision on all questions as formulated in para 6 of judgment dated 13-10-2010 by this Court in Central Excise Reference No. 4 of 2003. CESTAT to attempt to decide the appeals as early as possible. - Central Excise Appeal No. 25 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2012 - B.P. Dharmadhikari and A.B. Chaudhari, JJ. Shri S.K. Mishra, ASGI, for the Appellant. Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.]. - In view of the earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufactured goods on payment of duty has not been considered by any of the Authorities below. If the job worker was not liable to pay excise duty while returning the manufactured goods to the supplier of raw materials, then the question of the supplier of the raw materials claiming full credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, does not arise at all. 4. We find it convenient to narrate the facts from earlier judgment of this Court dated 13-10-2010 in CEL Reference No. 4 of 2003. M/s. Central Cables Private Limited, Respondent No. 2 therein, had purchased aluminium/copper rods from MMTC for their actual use on the strength of quota allotted to them under regular gate passes in their own name. On receipt of the said goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1985, on payment of duty as inputs and the goods, which were received in their own name, were transferred to the three job-workers by endorsing the concerned gate passes without accounting for the same in the statutory RG23A Part I and II register and making entries of these goods in the private store accounts. The job-workers, who received these goods, took credit of the duty paid on the strength of the endorsed gate passes and manufactured wires and cleared the same on payment of duty availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 and transferred the manufactured wires to the assessee. The assessee took credit of the duty paid by the job-workers under Notification 175/96-C.E. at the enhanced rate as provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakh on the assessee under Rule 173Q and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each on three job-workers under Rule 173Q read with Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6. The High Court on 13-10-2010 had framed three questions and remanded the matter back to CESTAT (CEGAT) for deciding the same in accordance with law. Though in that judgment question numbers are not given and questions appear one after the other, while reproducing said para below, we have found it appropriate to add those question numbers for convenience. (1) The question as to whether the Central Cables Pvt. Ltd. had transferred the raw materials to the job workers, if transferred the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays upon manufacturer and job worker is recognized as manufacturer. He also contends that though small scale unit has been given concession in payment of excise duty, the establishment like M/s. Central Cable receiving such duty paid intermediate product from small scale unit, is entitled to avail credit for full excise duty ignoring the concession granted. He argues that as this position is settled, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal needs to be dismissed. For said purpose, he has invited our attention to certain judgments. 9. After hearing respective counsel, we are satisfied that substantial question of law as framed above, falls for determination in present matter. The impugned order passed by CESTAT shows that quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise duty. The said fact is lost site of or its impact in the present matter has not been considered by CESTAT. If M/s. Central Cables Private Limited enjoys quota facility from manufacturers of primary aluminium and copper, and it purchases the same, the question which arises is whether the credit for excise duty could have been allowed to be taken by job worker to whom the raw material is usually supplied/shifted only for further processing. This aspect which specifically required answer because of question No. 1 as formulated by this Court, has not been looked into by CESTAT. The question has got bearing on nature of arrangement between M/s. Central Cables Private Limited and its job workers. Nature of arrangement between M/s. Impact Cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
