9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit we take up the appeal. 2. The appellant-company has two units viz. Unit I & Unit II among which, in respect of the subject goods, Unit II was functioning as job worker for Unit I (principal manufacturer) for the period January to March 2000. Unit II is the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ork within the scope and ambit of "exempted final products" referred to under Rule 57R(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and, accordingly, took the view that no credit of duty paid on the capital goods used for the manufacture of 'wiring harness' was admissible to the job worker (appellant). Hence the above demand. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the question whether, on the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demand of Rs. 18,91,930/- is squarely supported by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Sterlite Industries (supra). The Larger Bench decision was followed in the other cases cited by counsel. We note that, in the case of Ucal Machine Tolls (supra), the ratio of the Larger Bench decision was lucidly examined and applied in favour of the assessee as under "After giving careful consideration t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct cleared by the latter on payment of duty. Thus, duty gets paid on the job-worked goods at a later stage and, therefore, such goods cannot be categorized as "exempted goods" for purposes of Rule 57C or Rule 57R. Thus, the Larger Bench decision operates in favour of the respondents." 5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the capital goods in question were used for the manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
