9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit of duty paid on them treating them as capital goods. c) They supplied the capital goods ( rather, parts of capital goods) under cover of Annexure 2 challan as per Rule 57S(7)/57AC(5)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to two of the units which were availing the small scale exemption and received back sigma machines/reactor vessels. d) The sigma machines/reactor vessels were used for manufacture of excisable goods by the appellant and the excisable goods were cleared on payment of duty. e) The original authority held that the clearances made by the appellant to the job workers were not made for the purposes mentioned under Rule 57S(7) and ordered recovery of cenvat credit of rs.1,61,550/- involved on the goods cleared to the job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture has taken place. The job workers were availing small scale exemption and therefore they were not paying duty. Since they were not eligible to take credit of the duty paid on items like electric motor, gear boxes supplied by the appellant, non-reversal of the credit by the appellant was not in order. He pleaded for upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6.1. I have carefully considered the submissions by both sides. There are a few issues which have got inter-connected. 6.2. Whether the job worker has correctly valued the goods or not is one such issue. This issue, in my considered opinion, has to be taken at the end of the job worker only. 6.3. The second issue is whether goods returned by the job worker to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-novo consideration. 7. Learned advocate made submission that even if duty was payable, by denying the benefit of notification No.214/86 for the goods manufactured on job work basis, the duty so paid should be available as credit at their end and therefore it was a Revenue neutral exercise and therefore he submitted that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that larger period should be invoked, is not correct. Since the matter is being remanded to the original authority to consider the eligibility of Notification No.214/86, I am leaving this issue of invoking extended period open to be considered afresh by the original authority. 8. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
