9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in brief are that the appellant vide their application dated 25-5-1989 applied to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector for permission to remove raw material and semi processed goods namely soda ash. Chrome ore and limestone under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and/or Notification No. 214/86-C.E., date. 25-3-1986 inter alia declaring that the raw materials as above shall be supplied to the job workers by its suppliers. However, Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Patna Division vide his order dated. 26-5-1989 permitted the assessee to remove above inputs or semi-processed goods to job workers from the factory of the assessee. It was observed that the appellant instead of receiving above inputs at their own factory and supplying them to the job workers as permitted by Assistant Collector received intermediate products only from their job workers after such intermediate products are manufactured, out of the raw-materials received directly by the job worker and utilised said intermediate products in the manufacture of finished products. Though they received only intermediate products which was exempt from payment of duty, they availed credit of duty paid on inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 8-6-1989 CPI was endorsed. As such entry in RG 23A Pt. I was made on 8-6-1989 and credit was taken; and (vii) That the unit started operation in June, 89 so the procedural irregularity accrued due to unit being should be condoned. There is no mala fide intention of commiting breach of Rules with the motive of evasion of duty. As such the proceeding deserves to be dropped. 3. After the personal hearing, the impugned order is passed. 4. The learned Advocate, Shri N. Mookherjee appearing on behalf of the appellant Company stated that there is no violation of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, in view of the fact that prior permission of the Assistant Collector concerned was taken for bringing the raw-materials directly to the job workers premises. He also contended that with respect to Modvat credit on Hydrated Lime the appellants had given an application dated 25-5-1989 along with a revised declaration filed on 12-10-1989 both of which were ack knowledg by the Department on 26-5-1989 and 6-11-1989 by the Department, respectively. By that application the appellant Company had clearly-stated that they were using Hydrated Lime as input. But merely because the subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rule 57F(2). In such circumstances, the extended period is applicable. 7. We have considered the submissions. The first point that arises for our determination is whether there is any violation of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules. Under Rule 57F(2) it is seen that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) a manufacturer may with the permission of the Collector of Central Excise and subject to such terms and conditions and limitation as he may impose, remove the inputs to a place outside his factory for the purpose of manufacture of intermediate products and return the said intermediate products to his factory for further use in the manufacture of final products. It is thus clear that a manufacturer is entitled to remove the inputs, subject to the conditions imposed by the authorities, to a place outside his factory for the purpose of manufacture of intermediate products which are necessary for manufacture of the final products. In this case, the appellants filed such an application before the Assistant Collector on 25-5-1989 which is at Annexure III (Page 21) of the paper-book. In Column 5 of that application for permission to remove raw-materials etc...... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the inputs. In that view of the matter it is not correct to say that they availed of Modvat credit without declaration of the same as an input. Therefore, the order reversing the Modvat credit taken on this count also cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, it is seen that the show cause notice is dated 19-8-1991. The period covered under the above show cause notice is from May, 1989 to October, 1990. Admittedly, the same is issued after a period of six months. But there is no suppression material fact. In this case, the reason is that in the application filed by the appellants under Rule 57F(2) they have clearly stated that they are sending the inputs directly to the job-worker. They have also clearly stated that the waste has no commercial value and they are not getting the same back from the job-workers premises. In fact, it is an admitted fact even in the impugned order that the premises of the job-workers where the so-called job-works are done belongs to the appellants themselves and these two Sheds are quite adjacent to each other. Therefore, all the facts are clearly revealed to the Department. The Assistant Collector also approved their request for supply of the inputs direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
