TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 80,65,084/- - Rs. 80,65,084/- M/s. Taurus Industrial Corpn. - Rs. 4,61,104/- Rs. 4,61,104/- M/s. Jayton Polymers - Rs. 4,06,476/- Rs. 4,06,476/- B.N. Reddy - - Rs. 1,00,000/- Appropriate interest has also been demanded on the quantum of duty demanded. 2. M/s. Sunco Rubbers Ltd., (M/s. SRL) have received raw materials like masticated rubber and carbon black etc. from M/s. Taurus Industrial Corporation (M/s. TIC for short) and M/s. Jayton Polymers (M/s. JP for short) under Rule 57F(2) [now Rule 57F(3)] of the CE Rules, 1944 for further processing and return to the suppliers. It was seen from the declarations filed by M/s. JP and M/s. TIC, that after pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the job work is completed and the tread rubber stripes so obtained are despatched to the primary manufacturers under Rule 57F(2) for the purpose of completing the remaining work such as de-flashing etc. He has submitted that considerable amount of processes are done by the primary manufacturers such as de-flashing, checking the hardness of the vulcanised strip, checking the verneirs for uniformity, final inspection for fitness for final packing and despatch. He has therefore, submitted that the finding of the lower authority that the job worker viz. M/s. SRL have removed the fully manufactured goods are totally incorrect and the manufacturer of the goods are the raw material suppliers and not the job worker. He has submitted that the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in this case the adjudicating authority has proceeded to demand duty from the job workers on the ground that the job worker has manufactured fully finished pre-cured tread rubber from the raw materials supplied by the other two appellant viz. M/s. TIC and M/s. JP, and removed the same to the raw material suppliers without payment of duty and the raw material suppliers have utilized the inputs received under Rule 57A/57G in a manner otherwise than as provided under Rule 57F and thus they have availed Modvat credit wrongly. On going through the facts of the case and considering the submissions made by both the sides, we observe that the issue that is arising for our determination in the present case is, whether the job worker is the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the raw material suppliers (primary manufacturer) who have supplied the various raw materials/semi-finished goods). (v) The final batch i.e. mixing these sheets with sulphur and accelarators, are done at hands of the raw material suppliers at their premises. (vi) Extruding of the above final batch and cutting the strips to the specific lengths is also done at the premises of the raw material suppliers. (vii) The extruded strips are again sent to the job worker for further processing for heating on a matrix holder. (viii) After the heating is over at the hands of job worker, the next process is sanding i.e. the bottom side of the tread rubber is roughened to get the buffed surface of the tyre. After this process is over, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the statement given by authorised signatory of one of the raw material suppliers viz. M/s. Taurus Industrial Corporation. In the statement given by Accounts Manager of the job worker, he has clearly stated that the de-flashing is done by the raw material supplier. 7. From the above it is clear the raw materials required for the manufacture of strips tyres were supplied by the primary manufacturers (raw material suppliers) and the job worker has contributed his skills with the help of his tools for various processing and collected only job charges. Further, while a major processing of the raw material is done by the job worker, certain process are done at the hands of the suppliers of raw materials to make the manufacturing process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by job worker would not detract it being a job worker....". Further in the case of Addisons Co. v. CCE, reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 281 it was held that the term "process incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a product as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the Act, will embrace the process which is required to be carried out to put the production in the marketable form. In the present case, it is not the case of the department that the goods in the form in which they have been returned by the job worker to the raw material suppliers were fit for marketing or was marketed by them without subjecting the goods to the various process as has been done by the raw material suppliers, as noted above, who happens to be the primary manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
