9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposing penalty of the like amount besides ordering interest to be recovered was upheld. 2. The authorities below have come to a concurrent finding that Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL in short) imported capital goods on 27-9-1994 under EPCG Scheme and these goods, namely, dies, fixtures etc. were transferred to the appellant for manufacture of sheet metal parts which were supplied to MUL on payment of duty. Since MUL could not fulfil the export obligation they paid differential amount of duty, CVD, and interest in terms of the EPCG Scheme. The said capital goods were transferred to the appellant in the year 1994. After the MUL paid the differential duty, they sent supplementary invoices dated 26-3-2002 and 28-3-2002 to the appellant. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 52A, was issued when the goods were sent to the appellant on material gate passes . Relying on Rule 57R(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1994, it was held that since the appellant did not purchase the capital goods, no credit was admissible. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that, the Commissioner has resorted to Rule 57R(3), as it stood prior to its amendment made on 17-6-1994. He submitted that the goods were received by the appellant on 29-7-1994 and as per the amended Rule 57R(3), the appellant was entitled to take credit on the basis of the supplementary invoices which related to such goods for which credit could be taken under the amended Rule 57R(3). 6. As per Rule 57R(3), the credit of the specified duty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the vendor of the components manufactured by it in its factory and not a job worker. Nowhere has it been pleaded so far that the appellant was a job worker. Therefore, credit could not have been taken prima facie, even under Rule 4(5)(b) by the appellant and in this view of the matter, the decisions in Supreme Industries v. CCE, Pune reported in 2004 (169) E.L.T. 283 (T) = 2004 (60) RLT 350 (CESTAT-Mum.) and Philips India Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1028 (Tribunal-Mum.), which have been relied upon by the applicant cannot assist the applicant. 6. The applicant has, therefore, not made out any case for total waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts payable under the impugned order. It is, therefore, directed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
