9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It has been urged in the Appeals that the Collector (Appeals) erred in passing the Order he did as his Order has the effect of giving double credit on the same inputs, first on Aluminium ingots and secondly on the wire rods manufactured out of them which is quite anomalous and legally not tenable. The reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) that the manufacturer can send the inputs directly to the job worker has been objected to by the Collector in his Appeal as entirely out of context as the said facility is available only when the manufacturer operates under the provisions of Rule 57F(2). Under the said provision, the inputs on which Modvat Credit has been taken can be sent to a job worker either from the factory or directly from the suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Appeals and reiterated by the Departmental Representative. He referred to the decisions of the South Regional Bench in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 292 (Tri.) = 1990 (31) E.C.R. 111 and 1990 (46) E.L.T. 395 (Tri.) = 1990 (30) E.C.R. 381 in support of his plea that for non-observance of credit procedural requirements viz. non-obtaining of permi-ssion from the Assistant Collector for operating under Rule 57F, the substantive benefit under the statute cannot be denied. The Department s charge that they had taken double benefit of credit of duty is not correct. They had not taken more credit than the duty which had been paid. He relied upon the decision of the South Regional Bench in Facit Asia Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1991 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is that as the Respondents had not obtained the Assistant Collector s permission as required under Rule 57F(2), they were not eligible for availing the credit of duty paid on the ingots. Shri Das, learned Consultant for the Respondents had cited the Tribunal decisions in the case of Maschmeijer Aromatics (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 (46) E.L.T. 395; Facit Asia Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1991 (54) E.L.T. 347 and Lupin Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 914 (Tri.) = 1993 (48) E.C.R. 50 in support of the stand taken by the Appellants. In the first mentioned case, prior permission was not obtained for the conversion on job (work) basis. Credit was held to be not inadmissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e job workers on behalf of the Respondents. We, therefore, uphold the Order of the Collector (Appeals), with the direction that the credit of countervailing duty paid on the wire bars will be available to them only if the same had not been availed of by the job workers. The Department s App-eals are dismissed subject to the above verification and the verification of the receipt of wire rods from the job worker s premises and their utilisation for the declared purpose. 6. As regards the Cross Objections filed by the Respondents, the plea taken is that the Order of the Collector (Appeals) be modified to allow credit on the processing loss. The processing loss at the hands of the job worker can be condoned only subject to the conditions laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
