9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L. Narsimhan, learned Advocates, submitted that M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd., Appellant No. 1 manufacture Cold Rolled Strips (C.R. Strips) for which raw material is H.R. Coils in respect of which they avail MODVAT Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944; that they mainly purchase H.R. Coils from M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., Appellant No. 2, M/s. TISCO and M/s. SAIL; that during the disputed period, the practice in the Steel Industry was that the products were cleared from the factory on stock transfer basis to the various depots at a particular price; that the price at which the products were sold from the Depots was also not a conclusive price; that after negotiation and based upon the market conditions, the ultimate price was arrived at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured and cleared by Essar Steel at the hands of the Appellant No. 1 which is clearly impermissible; that the Central Excise officer having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer of the final products has no legal jurisdiction to reassess the goods manufactured and cleared from the factory of the input manufacturer. He relied upon the following decisions : i) CCE, Raipur vs Universal Cables Ltd. 1997 (94) ELT 185 (T) ii) Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs CCE, Allahabad 2000 (38) RLT 179 (T) iii) Cummins India Ltd. vs CCE, Pune-I 2002 (51) RLT 626 (CEGAT) = 2002(102) ECR 595 (T) iv) Kerala Electronic Corporation vs CCE 1996 (14) RLT 129 (T) = 1996 (46) ECR 569 (T) 3.2 He also referred to the decision in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procured H.R. Coils from their factory based on its estimated sale requirements; that at the time of clearance of goods, duty was paid on the assessable value which corresponded to the Depot selling price of H.R. Coils prevailing on the date of clearance from factory to the Depot; that at the time of clearance of goods from the factory to Depot, the goods were not earmarked for sale to the Appellant No. 1; that the depot selling invoice along with the debit note/credit note reflect the correct selling price; She referred to the Board's Circular No. 251/85/96-CX dated 14.10.1996 wherein it has been clarified in view of amendment of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act in 1996 that Assessments need not be kept provisional till the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 (120) ELT 138 (T). 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the Appellant No. 2 cleared H.R. Coils on payment of duty and the Appellant No. 1 had availed of MODVAT Credit of the duty actually paid by the supplier and mentioned in the duty paying documents, The Revenue has also not disputed the fact that the duty paid in excess on account of finalization of price between both the Appellants has not been claimed as refund by the Appellant No. 2. Nothing has also been brought on record by Revenue to show that the assessments were reopened at the supplier's end that is Appellant No. 2. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Electronic Corporation vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
