9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether they were eligible to take the Modvat credit of the duty paid by the job worker. 2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture safety seat belts and power windows, that they had taken the Modvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial quantity to the inputs supplied by the Appellants, they were not eligible to remove the inputs under Rule 57F(4). The learned Advocate, further submitted that Rule 57F(4) does not anywhere provide that job worker can not add any material on its own or that job worker has not to pay the duty. Rule 57F is simply a provision of sending the inputs or partially processed goods to the job worker a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid on the inputs which were removed by them to the premises of job worker; that the job worker was not required to pay any duty and as such they can not take the Modvat credit of the duty paid by the job worker. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Rule 57F(4) provides that the inputs can be removed as such or after they have been partially processed by the manufacturer of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed by the Revenue that any prejudice has been caused to them by the act of the appellants in taking the Modvat credit of the duty paid by the job worker at the intermediary stage inasmuch as the Appellants had taken that much credit on receipt of the duty paid intermediate goods which had already been paid by the job worker to the Revenue. This was the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
