9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 57S(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These moulds and dies were cleared during the period 14-7-1998 to 28-8-1998 by debiting the duty in their RG 23C part-II account by issuing the invoices. It is stated that they wanted to clear the said capital goods to the job worker under Rule 57S(8) without payment of duty. It is submitted that the said job worker was working under Rule 57F(4) and did not have the facility for availing Modvat credit. On realising their mistake they applied to the Assistant Commissioner for granting the permission under Rule 57S(8) which was given to them on 19-3-1999. They submitted that the mistake of despatch of the capital goods under a wrong rule was discovered during December, 1998 and immediately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns :- I have gone through the case records and considered the submission of the appellant. There is provision under Rule 57S(8) for clearance of Moulds and Dies without payment of duty, to a job worker subject to the permission of proper officer and such terms and condition imposed by him. I find that the appellant had already cleared the capital goods under Rule 57S(2) on payment of duty therefore question of grant of permission for removal of already cleared goods under Rule 57S(8) does not arise. Further there is no provision under Rule 57S(8) to grant the permission post facto. It is also true that there was no mention in the application for permission under Rule 57S(8) that the inputs raw materials for which permission under Rule 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S(2) which they say was not required to be paid since they were entitled to clear and receive them back without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 57S(8). The relevant provisions under Rule 57S as existed at the relevant time are re-produced below :- (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), a manufacturer may, with the permission of the Commissioner and subject to such terms and conditions and limitations as he may impose, remove the moulds and dies, without payment of duty, to a job worker for the purpose of production of goods on his behalf and according to his specifications. (9) The Commissioner shall not permit a manufacturer to remove the moulds and dies under sub-rule (8) unless the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Assistant Commissioner for withdrawing the permission on his coming to know of the facts. Further the above provisions also stipulated that the mould and dies should have been received back within a period of three months from the date of removal or within such extended period as may be permitted and in the event of the failure of the same the duty equivalent to the credit taken on the said mould and dies shall be paid. Admittedly, the mould and dies were not received back within the prescribed period of three months and further since they were removed without even applying to the Assistant Commissioner, the question of extending this period would not arise. On critical examination of the facts under consideration, therefore, it is ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
