1999 (12) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... received directly from the factory of the manufacturer of inputs for the period 29-4-1998 to 10-6-1998. In the second appeal, the lower authority has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,37,503/- as ineligible credit for the period 23-12-1997 to 17-3-1998 on similar grounds. Since both the appeals are on similar issue except for the period, they are being decided by this combined order-in-appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case in both the appeals are that the appellants have availed input credit under Rule 57A on the inputs cleared under compounded levy scheme, received from their job workers after being originally consigned to the latter without first entering the assessee s factory and payment for those was made by means of letter of c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lso directed the appellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on such deposit, the appeal should be restored for consideration on merits. The appellants have since complied. 4. I have given my careful consideration to all the facts herein and the submissions of the appellants as well. The common issue here is whether the appellants are eligible to take credit even though the inputs governed by compounded levy scheme were received through the job worker and not directly from the manufacturer of inputs. 5. In the grounds of appeals, the appellants have inter alia pleaded that the Notification No. 58/97, dated 30-8-1997 did not contemplate any such condition that the inputs should be received directly by the appellants and not thr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n No. 58/97 only seeks to regulate the credit available on goods falling under Chapter 72 and governed by the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A. The Board have themselves liberalised the procedure to the effect that inputs need not be physically received in the unit where the Modvat credit is taken but could be directly sent to the job worker and therefore there is no reason why such facility should not be extended only with respect to this Notification. Therefore, the said Notification cannot be interpreted in a way which would deny the benefit of deemed credit under the Rules. This view is supported by the case laws relied upon by the Advocate, particularly in Anand Transformer s casel reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 678 (T). Further, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X