TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he scheme of Modvat permits the person who clears the ultimate final product to take the benefit of the Modvat scheme at the time of clearance of such final product. The manufacturer of the final product, in this case TELCO, would therefore, be entitled not only to adjust the credit on the inputs supplied by it to the intermediate purchaser such as the appellant but also to the credit for the duty paid by the intermediate purchaser on its products. As the final product was the excavator. According to the Modvat scheme, it is the Modvat of such final product which would have to include the cost of the inputs and in respect of which Modvat credit could be taken at the time of clearance of the final product. The Tribunal having misconstrued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Ltd. and another v. Union of India - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 671 = 1991 (3) SCC 467 but reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. 5.Before us learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the entire transaction between the TELCO and the appellant was covered by Rule 57F(2)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under these Rules the assessee is the manufacturer of the final product, in this case, excavators. The manufacturer of the final product is permitted to remove inputs to a place outside the factory for the purpose of manufacture of intermediate products so that they are returned to the factory for further use in the manufacture of final products. In such a case the credit is taken by the manufacturer of the final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) by the Tribunal was misplaced. That case has no doubt held that the value of the free inputs were to be included in the final product. In that case, the final product was wagons and the question was whether the items which were supplied free by the Railway Board to the assessee could be included in the value of the wagons. This Court came to the conclusion that it could. The first distinguishable feature is that this Court in that case was neither concerned with the Modvat scheme, nor with the provisions of Rule 57F(2)(b). Furthermore, the Court was not considering a situation where the question was of the liability of an intermediate product being subjected to excise duty. What was in consideration was the final product, namely, wago ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
