9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were also availing Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The period of dispute in this case is from February 1998 to November 1998. The respondent after receiving the duty paid inputs, in respect of which Modvat credit had been taken, were sending the same to job workers for processing under job work challans, who were required to return the same within the stipulated time period after completing the required processing. During the period of dispute, as per the provisions of Rule 57F (6) for removal of such modvated inputs either as such or after processing for processing/ further processing to job worker, an amount equal to 10% of the value of such inputs/partly processed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the respondent in respect of (a) the inputs which after being sent to the job workers for processing on debit of an amount equal to 10% of the value had not been returned back within the stipulated period ; and (b) the inputs sent to job workers for processing in respect of which though recredit has been taken by the respondent, but there is no evidence regarding the receipt of the same within the stipulated period. 1.2 On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) by the six orders-in-appeals, each dated 30th November 2004, set aside the Modvat credit demands in respect of the inputs sent to job workers in respect of which it is alleged that the same have not been returned back after processi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erself to the point (b) above, there is no discussion with regard to the serious discrepancies mentioned at (a) above ; (d) while the Commissioner (appeals) in her order has observed that the Respondent were required to submit every month, the monthly abstract of Annexure IV register required to be maintained under Rule 57G (7), this register was never submitted by the respondent to the Jurisdictional Central excise officers ; and (e) the CCE (Appeals), without any basis has jumped to the conclusion that all the debits of inputs sent for processing made in RG-23A Pt. I, had a corresponding entry in Annexure IV register. The learned DR, therefore, pleaded that the CCE (Appeals) has grossly erred in setting aside the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value already debited at the time of sending to the job-workers. On this point, the findings of the Assistant Commissioner, which are identical in each of the six orders in original, are as under :- As regards the demand of duty amounting to .., being 25% of the value of such inputs as has been claimed by the party erroneously, the provisions of Rule 57F (11) lays down If the inputs are partially processed inputs are not received back in the factory of the manufacturer of final product within a period of 180 days, the manufacture shall recalculate the amount of actual credit attributable to such inputs or on inputs contained in the partially processed inputs and he shall adjust the differential amount, if any, after taking into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent for processing/job-working (Annexure IV) had been prescribed by the Board s Circular No. 265/99/96-CX dated 12/11/96, if the entries in the register show the receipt back of the inputs from the job-workers, within the stipulated period, the recredit of the amount equal to 10% of the value of the inputs/semi-processed inputs has to be allowed. But there should be no doubt about the genuineness of the entries in Annexure IV register regarding the receipt of the inputs. The CCE (Appeals) while accepting the respondent s contention that the inputs sent to job-workers for processing had been received back from them, has not addressed at all the objections of the Department in this regard, as mentioned in para 4 above. The matter, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
