9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r]. The respondents are manufacturers of Screws Rivets of iron and steel. For the purpose of manufacture of such products, they used to send steel rods for wire-drawing on job work basis. When they did so, they took Modvat credit of the duty paid on the steel rods. The job workers returned the processed goods (wires drawn from steel rods) to the respondents under cover of challans under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the lower appellate authority, in the appeal filed by the assessee, reversed the decision of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal of the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ld. JDR, Sh. H.C. Verma reiterates the grounds of this appeal. He submits that the respondents had not declared waste in their declaration filed under Rule 57F(4), thereby disentitling themselves to the ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36/87-CX. 8, dated 15-1-88. He prays that the impugned order be upheld, following the cited case law. 4. I have examined the submissions. I find that the 3.332 MTs of steel material was, admittedly, the burning loss which occurred at the job workers end during the process of wire-drawing and the same was shown as destroyed in the challans under which the processed goods were returned by the job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in this case is thus covered by case law in favour of the assessee. The reliance placed by the JDR on the Larger Bench decision does not appear to help the appellant s case as the context in which that decision was rendered was quite different from the one obtaining in the present case. 5. In the result, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is sustained and the present appeal is rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
