9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of metallised films and were availing the facility of the Cenvat credit. The appellants are also undertaking the process of metallization of films received from the other manufacturer on job-work basis. Such metallised films were cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 under the cover of job-work challans. The appellants are also availing the Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs which are used in the processing of metallised films which were manufactured on job-work basis. In respect of the inputs on which Cenvat credit has been taken by the appellants and which were used in the manufacture of metallised films, were clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal products charged by the manufacturer from the sale of the such goods at the time of their clearance from the factory. The contention of the appellants is that there is no sale by the job-worker to the principal manufacturer and in absence of sale, the provisions of these rules are not applicable. The contention is also that the provisions of Rule 6(1) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as this Rule provides that credit is not to be allowed on such quantity of inputs which are used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The contention is that intermediate goods manufactured by the them on the job work are further used in manufacture of the goods on which duty has been paid by the principal manufacturer, therefore, it cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods. The contention is that in the present case, the appellants were availing the credit in respect of the common inputs used in the manufacture of goods on which duty has been paid and the goods which were cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and no separate records were being maintained by the appellant, therefore, they were liable to pay 8% of the price of the final product charged by them for the sale of such goods. 6. The appellants are manufacturing metallised films and clearing the same on payment of duty and also undertaking the job-work of metallising films on the films supplied by the principal manufacturer and after metallising the same were cleared with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) E.L.T. 94 (T) = 2002 (48) R.L.T. 221. The departmental representative relies heavily on what the Commissioner has said. The ratio of the decision in Ballarpur Industries is that in cases where the exempted final product is not sold, the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC will not apply because that cannot be given effect to; the rule requires the manufacturer to pay 8% of the price charged by him for the sale of such goods. Although this decision was not cited before the Commissioner, the specific point which forms the ratio of this decision was urged before him and he has not dealt with it, merely saying that the provisions of rules are clear. The departmental representative is not able to say why the ratio of this decision should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
