9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed on the duty paid on the inputs which are used in the manufacture of intermediate products received by the manufacturer for use in the manufacture of their final products. The availment of credit under sub-rule (1) of Rule 57J is subject to sub-rule (2) which states that the credit shall be allowed only if the intermediate product is manufactured in the factory in which the exemption benefit in the Notification No. 214/86, dated 25-3-86 has been availed of. (ii) In the instant case, the job workers viz., M/s. Kamet Plastics Ltd., M/s. Amruta Moulding Pvt. Ltd., from whom M/s. Nestle India Ltd., received the intermediate product, have failed to satisfy the condition under Rule 57J in as much as the said job workers are not availing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of wads while discharging the duty liability on caps Assistant Commissioner's contention was that since the goods were sent under Rule 57F(4) directly to the job worker provisions of Rule 57J are attracted. As per the said provisions credit of duty paid on any inputs used by the job worker could be availed only if intermediate products are manufactured in a factory in which the exemption under Notification No. 214/86 is availed. In the instant case the so called job workers M/s. Kamet Plastics and M/s. Amruta Moulding Pvt. Ltd., were not availing exemption under Notification No. 214/86. Hence, Assistant Commissioner held that credit availed by M/s. Nestle India is irregular in as much as the job worker had not satisfied the condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be followed was not complied with as submitted by the learned DR. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have set aside the order. The DR also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into an area which was not the dispute. We find that procedural breach of the pre-deceases Notfn. 351/86 (under Rule 57J) was not held to be reason enough to deny the credit [The Aluminium Industries Ltd. - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 460 (T - SRB)]. We would therefore not deny the substantial benefit of credit, if otherwise eligible. We however, would find that for procedural non-compliance, a penal consequence could be called for. However we find that the lower authorities have not invoked any penal liabilities nor is there an appeal against that. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
