9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of printing ink. Some consignments of the ink that is so manufactured were not accepted by the customers, being defective, and returned to it. The appellant thereupon took modvat credit of the duty paid by it on these goods when it cleared them earlier, and utilised the credit towards payment of duty on the inks obtained by reprocessing these goods. This was objected to by issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjected rejected paint or varnish did not amount to manufacture and therefore the provisions of the Modvat credit procedure would not be available. 4. It does not appear to me necessary, in order to dispose of the appeal, to examine whether the reprocessing undertaken by the appellant of the defective goods amounts to manufacture, in the sense that a new, different product emerges. On the assump ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the goods are subjected amounts to manufacture. 6. Applying this principle to the facts before us, and still maintaining the assumption that there was no manufacture, the entry by the appellant in the RG23A register debiting the amount of credit towards the duty payable was unnecessary. That entry cannot be permitted to stand. At the same time, the credit that it took of the duty paid on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the department and acted quite openly throughout. It did not set about claiming the benefit of Rule 173H; therefore was hence no question of filing intimation in Form D-3 of the arrival of the goods. Penalty was therefore not imposable on the appellant. 8. The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly, setting aside the penalty, confirming the Additional Collector's view that Modvat credit s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
