9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued showing name of M/s. Mittu Pharma A/c M/s. Lupin Laboratory and held that there was a procedure for such movement of consignment subject for observance of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules at the relevant time. The adjudicating authority and the appellant had agreed that such procedure was in existence during the relevant time but the adjudicating authority did not consider this on the ground that appellant did not only faild to follow the procedure but on the ground that the availment is in violation of the provision of the Modvat rule in so far as the goods are consigned directly to M/s. Mittu Pharma. In view of this, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee and reduced the penalty of Rs. 5/000/-. Agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking credit of duty paid on empty gelatine capsules should not be denied to them. 3. After careful consideration of the submissions; the Asstt. Commissioner denied Modvat credit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. In appeal the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) held as indicated in the preceding paragraph. 4. Shri P. Sudhir, ld. Counsel appears for the appellants and submits that Lupin Laboratories placed purchase order on M/s. Universal Capsules for supply of empty gelatine capsules; that the empty capsules were required to be printed with the name of the appellants. that for printing the empty gelatine capsules, the appellants placed an order on M/s. Mittu Pharma for printing the capsules; that M/s. Universal Capsules manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly because permission of a routine nature for removing raw-materials directly to job worker was not specifically sought for. In support of his contention he cited Notification No. 214/86 and the provisions of Rule 57F(2), 57F(3) and 57G. Ld. Counsel also supported his arguments by relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of British Physical Laboratories v. C.C.E., Bangalore [l994 (74) E.L.T. 593] in the case of Apex Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh [l995 (80) E.L.T. 368]. The Ld. Counsel therefore, submitted that in view of their submissions, and the case law cited above, the appeal may be allowed. 5. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, ld. JDR submits that receipt of the goods in the premises of the appellant is not direct. The g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
