9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, fly wheel components, disk components etc. The appellants removed 13 sets of dies in their factory. These 13 dies were removed to the premises of M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. used these dies for manufacture of various components and cleared the components on payment of appropriate Excise Duty. The Department alleged that since the appellants were not receiving any raw material from the principal manufacturer, therefore, M/s. FCC Rico Ltd. were not job worker of M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Therefore, they were asked to explain as to why duty should not be demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed on them. Ld. Counsel submits that this very same issue had come up before the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant, therefore, the applicant cannot be treated as job worker. He, therefore, prayed that the applicant may be directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we note that this Tribunal in the case of Monica Electronics under identical facts had held that the applicant was a job worker. To be precise the Tribunal in Paras 4 and 5 had observed : 4. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. On a perusal of the scheme of Rule 57-S and the sub-rules (8), (9) and (10) in particular, it appears that the said three sub-rules deal with removal of moulds and dies by a manufacturer to a job worker for the purpose of prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be compatible with the definition of job worker in the said notifications. We, therefore, find that there is force in the contention of the ld. Counsel that any interpretation of job-worker in sub-rules (8) to (10) of Rule 57-S as having the same meaning it has in the Exemption Notifications will distort the said provisions and make it unworkable. We also find that the decisions relied on by the Commissioner do not deal with the question of applicability of definition of job worker in other Notifications to provisions of Rule 57-S(8). 5. In the above view of the matter, we are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the Commissioner in the impugned order for holding that M/s. Showpla India Ltd. is not a job worker for purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
