9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T)]. The appellant is a manufacturer of rubberized steel rollers which are liable to Central Excise duty. It also undertakes the re-rubberisation of old rollers. The second activity does not attract any Central Excise duty. 2. Under the impugned order, duty demand of about Rs. 16 lakhs, along with penalty of equal amount, has been imposed on the appellant under Rule 57CC(1) of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubberising. He had also handed over invoices covering receipts of inputs for the period on which no Modvat credit had been availed of. 4. The ld. Counsel has also a legal contention that Rule 57CC has no application in the facts of the present case. His submission is that the Rule is attracted only where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot taking any credit at all of the duty paid on the inputs, the requirement of adjusting credit did not arise. 5. The ld. SDR would emphasize that Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor had specifically confirmed in his statement that separate accounts of inputs were being kept only till 1998. 6. There is merit in the contentions of the appellant. Re-rubberising (repair/refurnishing) is not a manufacturing activi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is also to be noted that there is no finding, on the factual aspect, that the appellant used modvated inputs for the purpose of re-rubberising. Such a finding could have been raised based on input-output ratio or any other reasonable basis. But the adjudicating authority has not cared to go into that crucial issue at all. 8. In view of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
