Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (2) TMI 813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lue 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 impugned orders-in-appeal are, therefore, set aside and the matters are remanded to CCE (Appeals) for denovo decision after examining the Department s objections to permitting Modvat credit. - E/969-970, 889-891 & 1323 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2011 - Hon'ble Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Appearance Shri Nitin Anand, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant. Shri Ravi Radhvan, Advocate - for the Respondent. Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The facts giving rise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ber of cases the processed inputs have not been received back even after the expiry of the stipulated period of 180 days and in such cases the department seeks to demand the Modvat credit initially taken in respect of those inputs subject to the adjustment as prescribed under Rule 57F (11) of the Central Excise Rules, which provides that if the inputs or partly processed inputs are not received back in the factory of the manufacturer of the final product within a period of 180 days, the manufacturer shall recalculate the amount of actual credit attributable to such inputs or inputs contained in the partly processed inputs and thereafter, he shall adjust the differential amount, if any after taking into account the amount already debited whi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed that (a) While under the provisions of Rule 57 F (7) readwith 57F (9), the recredit of duty equal to 10% of the value of inputs/semi-processed inputs debited under Rule 57F (6) could be allowed only when the same after processing are received back in full under the cover of the duplicate copy of challans issued under Rule 57F (4), under which the inputs had been sent to the job-workers, the CCE (Appeals) has wrongly set aside the duty demands without any clear evidence of receipt of the processed inputs in the respondent s factory, as on the dates when the inputs are stated to have been received in the factory of the respondent, the challans showed that the same were still in possession of the job-workers and the said challans were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the inputs, after processing, had not been returned. He also pleaded that the inputs returned after processing from job-worker s premises were not required to be entered in RG-23A Pt. I register, but were required to be entered in Annexure IV prescribed under Rule 57G (7) and the receipt of the processed inputs from job-workers had been duly recorded in this register. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The dispute in these appeals filed by the Revenue is about the Modvat credit on certain inputs, sent by the Respondent to job-workers for processing after debiting in RG-23A Pt. II account, an amount equal to 10% of the value of the inputs, which, according to the Department, wer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eturned within the stipulated period of 180 days, has not given any findings on the point as to whether the processed inputs had been returned or not. 4. The CCE (Appeals), while holding that the inputs sent to job-work challans had been received back by the respondent, has not given any finding in respect of the allegations of the Department that on the dates when the inputs were stated to have been received back, the said challans showed that the same were still in possession of the job-workers and the said challans were delivered at a later date to the Respondent. Similarly there is no finding in respect of the allegation that the monthly abstract of Annexure IV register maintained under Rule 57G (7) was never submitted to the Range .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates