9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit on the said inputs viz. Synthetic Rubber, Carbon black and chemicals and utilised the same for payment of duty on the rubber products. A part of the compounded rubber during the said period was consumed for re-rubberisation of old/used rollers sent by other parties for job work. The department treated this job work done by the respondent, as a process of manufacture and considered the re-rubberised rollers as excisable goods exempt from payment of duty. On this premise, for the earlier part of the period of the dispute, the department invoked Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to demand 8% of the price of the re-rubberised rollers and, for the remaining part of the period of dispute, they invoked similar provisions con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as they had not maintained separate accounts for inputs used in rubber products and those used for job work. The appellant has also stated to the effect that the old formula adopted by the respondents for such expunction of credit and accepted by the department prior to incorporation of the aforesaid Rules in the statute book is not applicable to the material period. The Revenue has also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE, Chennai v. MIL Industries Ltd. [2002 (143) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.)] wherein the question whether re-rubberising and relining of old and used rollers amounted to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was remanded to the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not amount to manufacture. 4. After carefully examining the submissions, I find that the basic question to be examined is whether the rules invoked by the department for recovering from the respondents 8% of the price of re-rubberised rollers for the period of dispute are applicable at all. It has been argued by the respondents' Counsel that re-rubberisation of used rollers supplied for job work did not amount to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this connection, a reference has been made to the Tribunal's decision. 1 find that, in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also referred to this decision of the Tribunal to the effect that, in the respondents' own case, re-rubberisation of us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
