9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gin on the total of two'. As per Rule 57F, it is clarified that this sub-rule did not require the manufacturer to ascertain and declare the value of partly processed item and in this case the assessee has already paid the duty on the cost of inputs plus 32.25% of the cost of inputs as profits, which is definitely more than the duty required to be reversed. In this scenario, no infirmity with the impugned order, the same is upheld as appeal filed by the Revenue deserves no merits and the same is rejected. - E/3097/03 - Final Order No. A/10/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 4-1-2011 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri.K. Lal, SDR for appellant Per: Ashok Jindal 1. The Revenue is in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals), the said order was set aside recording the correct fact saying that as the said goods have been returned to the respondent after processing, which was not considered by the adjudicating authority and thereafter the provisions of Rule 57F were applicable to the respondent's case and giving the benefit of the notification No.14/96, the adjudication order was set aside. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the respondent nor has any request been received by this Tribunal. This matter has been listed several times before this Bench but all the times the respondent did not appear at all, hence the matter has been taken up for final disposal as the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he total of two'. In the impugned order, after recording the correct fact of the case the lower appellate authority has considered the submissions of the respondent and considering the submissions has arrived at the finding as under:- "Under Rule 57F as it stood during the relevant period (sub-rule 3 (A) inserted vide notification No.14/96-Central Excise (NT) dated 23/07/1996) a manufacturer availing modvat could remove inputs as such, or after the inputs had been partially processed during the course of manufacture of final products to a place outside the factory for the purpose of job-works (listed in sub-rule (3)). The manufacturer was to do so after debiting an amount equal to the amount of credit of duty attributable to such inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
