TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumed that the activity is manufacture it will remain exempted under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/3/1986 according to which if any goods manufactured on job work basis on material supplied by the principal manufacturer and said manufactured goods is used in the factory of the principal manufacturer, the said goods are exempted from the payment of whole of duty. In the present case the moulds supplied by Bhoisar unit to the appellant and appellant after carried out the activity returned back the moulds to the Bhoisar unit where it was used for the manufacture of other final product i.e. plastic parts on which excise duty is undisputedly paid. In this position even if by any stretch of imagination the activity held to be manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e moulds and dies are used by their Bhoisar unit for manufacture of plastic product. The Revenue contended that the activity of modification of moulds and dies amount to manufacture therefore it is liable to excise duty. The Adjudicating authority held the activity as manufacture and demanded the duty vide its Order-in-Originals. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal therefore the appellant is before us. 3. Shri.Vijay Sejpal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of moulds and dies as well as activity of repair, maintenance and modification of existing moulds. The said moulds are used by their own uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the activity carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Therefore the Adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority has rightly demanded the duty on the said activity. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Gehring India Vs. Collector of C. Ex. Kanpur [2000 (116) ELT 679 (Tri.)] (ii) Becco Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi [1998 (79) ELT 705 (Tri.)] (iii) Decorative Laminates (I) Pvt Ltd Vs. Collr. C.Ex. Bangalore [1996 (86) ELT 186 (S.C.)] 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. We find that the appellant has undisputedly received moulds, which were earlier being used as moulds for the manufacture of plastic articles in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs or capital goods by debiting the CENVAT credit or otherwise, but the manufacturer can take the CENVAT credit again when the inputs or capital goods are received back in his factory. From the plain reading of the above Rule, it is clear that rule permits to send the capital goods to job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning or manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for manufacturing of final product or any other purpose. In view of this clear provisions, the appellant has correctly followed the procedure laid down under Rule 4(5)(a). Even if it presumed that the activity is manufacture it will remain exempted under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
