9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case the rejected goods cannot be raw material and that the assessee should have followed the procedure u/r 173H for repairing of rejected goods and therefore, upheld the order of the ld. Asstt. Collector. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of CRGO electrical stampings and laminations. The appellants are availing input credit facility under the Modvat scheme. During the month of June 1993, the appellants availed Modvat credit of Rs. 38,728/- in respect of 4120 kgs. of electrical stampings and laminations received from M/s. National Electrical Equipment Corporation, Jaipur under GPI No. 45, dated 5-6-1993 who had cleared these inputs under Rule 57F(1)(ii) on account of rejection. These good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions and stampings. He therefore, submitted that the goods were described as inputs for the purpose of Modvat scheme. He submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Alcobex Metals Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 146 had held that the defective goods cleared by customers under Rule 57F(1)(ii) received by the appellants under cover of gate pass on payment of duty are remelted and used as inputs in the manufacture of final product and are eligible to Modvat credit. The Tribunal further held that the Modvat credit available to such defective goods being used as inputs not to be considered as final products. The ld. C.A. also submitted that recently in the case of Thapar Ispat Ltd. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 548, this Tribunal had h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve of the goods being scrap and since scrap in all its form has been declared by the assessee in his declaration filed u/r 57G, Modvat credit will be admissible on this scrap. I do not see any reason to disagree with this contention and therefore, I follow the ratio of this decision of the Tribunal. (b) The second issue that arises is whether the goods cleared in terms of Rule 57F(1)(ii) on payment of duty applicable to finished product will make any difference in so far as the credit of duty by the original manufacturer to whom the defective electrical stamping and lamination have been returned is concerned. I observe that similar issue had arisen in the case of Alcobex Metals Ltd. (supra) in which the Tribunal held that defective good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
