9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the electric motors are sold as such. The appellant imports wire rods of copper and after furnishing intimation required, sent the rods to job worker in terms of Rule 57F(4). The job worker drew the rods into winding wire and returned the winding wire to the appellant. These winding wires were sent by it to another job worker under Rule 57F(4) for use in the manufacture of wound status. Wound status on it received from the factory are utilised in the manufacture of electric motor which we have noted, which are either cleared on payment of duty or utilised in the factory in the manufacture of pumps. Part of these pumps are cleared on payment of duty; some variety primarily intended to handling water which are specified in heading 84.13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the proposal in seven of the eight notices, holding the eighth to be barred by limitation. These appeals are against the common order confirming the proposal. 4. The contention that was taken before the Commissioner and is taken before us is that the notice is misconceived. The appellant never claimed the benefit of notification 8/96, and did not apply the exemption contained in it to any of its products. The relevant entry in notification, refers to 84.1 exempts goods falling inter alia under Chapter 85 of the tariff other than the following namely, (a) Electric Steam and Lamination; (b) Bearing; and (c) Winding wire. The notification therefore does not grant exemption to Winding wires. No dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85 other than winding wire. It was therefore not possible for the appellant or indeed any one else to legally avail of the exemption in case of winding wires. 7. Apart from this, the manufacture of winding wire was carried out not by the appellant but by the job worker. If for any reason, duty was payable on winding wires, it is the job worker who has to pay the duty and not the appellant. The answer that the departmental representative furnishes is that since the finished goods are exempted from duty, the benefit of the Modvat rules will not be applicable in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of these finished goods, and therefore the provision of Rule 57F(4) will not apply. We accept the correctness of this contention in princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
