9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by the Revenue, is regarding liability to Central Excise duty in respect of tools, cutters and hobs manufactured by M/s. Gajra Gears Ltd. and sent outside for tin coating under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the material time. 2. Mrs. Nita Lal Butalia, learned SDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned tools are also not exempted under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. as they have been cleared outside factory; that the provisions of Rule 57F(4) are also not applicable, and therefore, the duty is payable by them at the time of clearance of the tools to their job workers. 3. Countering the arguments Shri Mayank Holan and Ran Holani, C.A., submitted that Rule 57F(4) permitted removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant time authorised the manufacturer to remove the inputs as such or after they are partially processed at a place outside his factory for various purposes including refining, reconditioning, or carrying out any other operation necessary for the manufacture of the final products and return the same to his factory for further use in the manufacture of the final products or removing after paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ols were not used by the respondents in the manufacture of final product. As the removal of the impugned goods was duly covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules no duty of excise was payable by the respondents at the time of removing the tools for the purpose of tin coating. Accordingly the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
