9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the same for the manufacture of some of the goods. Hand tools falling under erstwhile Tariff item 51A and now falling under sub-heading No. 8207.00 of the new tariff were brought under Central Excise levy for the first time with effect from 1-3-1974. Jigs and fixtures falling under the erstwhile Tariff item 68 and now falling under sub-heading Nos. 8466.00 of the new Tariff, were brought under excise levy for the first time with effect from 1-3-1975 when Tariff Item No. 68 was introduced. Therefore, the hand tools manufactured prior to 1-3-1974 and jigs and fixtures manufactured prior to 1-3-1975 were beyond the scope of excise levy. The appellant was manufacturing such goods right from 1968 onwards which have been exempted under the No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for a long time before they were temporarily removed to the premises of the job workers and the same were brought back after the job work was completed and were being further used in the factory of the appellant, the condition stipulated in the Notification Nos. 58/86 and 220/86 for availing exemption have been actually fulfilled and this fact has not been appreciated. (b) Payment of duty in respect of the tools manufactured and used prior to 1-3-1974 and jigs and fixtures manufactured and used prior to 1-3-1975 is an error since these were not excisable at the time of manufacture and removal for captive use. (c) When the goods were captively used within the factory they were deemed to have been removed in terms of Rule 9 read with R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to clearance for use in the factory of production they have been removed from the factory for use elsewhere, there cannot be two removals for the purposes of determination of the duty under the excise law. The Collector has also not considered whether the use outside was for a process ancillary to manufacture or for a full manufacture outside. Therefore on the basis of material on record the demand cannot be upheld, because, if the use was for a process ancillary to manufacture, then it would be in completion of the manufacture by the present appellant eligible for benefit. Only if the use outside tile factory on job work amounts to manufacture, it would be held that the job worker is the manufacturer and then the goods have not been used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
