9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of components under job work in terms of Rule 4(5)(a). In such case no excise duty is payable. Therefore, no question of inclusion of amortisation cost of the tools arise. However, the adjudicating authority has not given any finding on the issue of job work under Rule 4(5)(a). Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/806/07 - A/85535/17/EB - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Asha Vinayak Nagarkar, Advocate for the appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of moto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sustainable for the reason that though the appellant have received the cost of tools from the principal manufacturer but the same was not removed from the factory. In support of her submission, she placed reliance on the following decision:- (i) Kirloskar Ferrous Indus.Ltd. 2005 (189) ELT 474 (ii) Radhakrishna Ramnarain Ltd. 1980 (6) ELT 709 (iii) Recron Synthetics Ltd. 2005 (192) ELT 642(T) (iv) Cosmic Dye Chemicals 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC) 3. On the other hand, Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt.(AR) appearing for the revenue reiterated the finding of the impugned order. He submits that there is no dispute that the appellant have received the value of the tools manufactured by them and used to manufacture of motor vehicl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol was sold and the value of the same was received by the appellant the excise duty on such sales transaction cannot be demanded for the reason that the tools were not cleared from the factory of the appellant. It is settled position that excise duty is payable only on the clearance of the goods from the factory of the manufacturer. However, it is also a settled law that the amortisation cost has to be apportioned in the value of the component manufactured when the tools is belonging to the principal manufacturer. In the present case it is a submission of the appellant that such tools was used for manufacture of components on job work basis on the input supplied by the principal manufacturer under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
