Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2002 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (3) TMI 778 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are liable for duty on manufactured aluminium castings. 2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Rule 57F(3) for job work. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves the confirmation of duty against the appellant for manufacturing aluminium castings from aluminium ingots without payment of duty. The raw material was sent by a supplier, and the castings were returned to the supplier. The issue was whether the appellants could be considered manufacturers of the castings. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the appellants failed to produce required statutory documents, making them the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not follow the necessary procedures under Rule 57F(3), leading to the duty demand confirmation. 2. The appellants argued that they were only undertaking job work by converting ingots into castings, and the entire operation should be covered under Rule 57F(3). They cited precedents where compliance with procedural rules allowed benefits. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants did not follow the procedures specified under Rule 57F(3). The judgment highlighted that the rule mandates a detailed procedure for both the raw material sender and the job-worker, emphasizing the importance of compliance to enable proper supervision by Central Excise authorities. 3. The Tribunal considered the appellants' contention that they were not aware of the procedural requirements under Rule 57F(3. However, it was noted that the raw material sender, who was also involved in job work, was aware of and followed the rule. The judgment emphasized that failure to follow the procedure hindered the authorities' ability to verify the genuineness of claims regarding the utilization of goods in further manufacturing. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the appellants' failure to comply with Rule 57F(3) could not be excused as a mistake, as the procedure was essential for effective supervision and control of excisable goods movement.
|