Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (1) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per : K. Raviraja Pandian, J.]. - The Commissioner of Central Excise has filed this appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, assailing the correctness of the order of the CESTAT, Chennai, in Final Order No. 206 of 2004 dated 5-3-2004. 2. The facts of the case proceed as follows : The respondent had received raw materials like masticated rubber and carbon black etc. from M/s. Taurus industrial Corporation and M/s. Jayton Polymers under Rule 57 F(2), now Rule 57F(3) of the Customs Excise Rules, 1944 for further processing and return to the suppliers. After processing, the processed precured tread rubber were cleared to the raw material suppliers under Rule 57F(2) challans. The Department was of the view that the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing, checking the goods with vernier, inspection of goods, checking the hardness, are manufacturing process as required under Rule 57 F(2) [Rule 57F(3)}of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? (b) Whether the Tribunal is correct in not considering the contradicting statement given before the adjudicating authority and misrepresentation of facts placed before Tribunal without placing any evidence to prove it? (c) Whether the Tribunal is correct in ordering that the goods have attained the stage of fully manufactured goods when there is contra diction in the assessee's statements made before adjudicating authority and Tribunal and when a party to the dispute is approaching the Tribunal without concrete evidence and proper reasons to counter the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e order of the CESTAT, which are as follows: "(i) Raw materials such as masticated rubber with PBR, carbon black stearic acid and anti oxidents are removed to the job worker under Rule 57F(2)/57F(3)(b). (ii) By various process, such as mixing the raw materials in a kneader at 145 to 160° centigrade for 10-12 minutes and cooling it in water for about 24 hours, the master batch is prepared at the premises of the job worker. (iii) The master batch is then again mixed in the kneader for 3 to 4 minutes and again cooled in water and kept for 24 hours for aging at the hands of the job worker. This process is called PT batch. This is also done by the job worker. (iv) The PT batch is returned to the raw material suppliers (primary manufactur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re inspected for final despatch to the customers by the primary manufacturers (raw material suppliers)." 6 . From the above activities, it is evident that the goods are made ready for marketing only after the goods are subjected to deflashing, testing and inspection at the hands of the raw material suppliers, i.e., primary manufacturers. The Tribunal has also found on facts that the raw materials required for manufacture of strips tyres were supplied by the primary manufacturer (raw material supplier) and the job worker has contributed his skills with the help of his tools for various processing and collected only job charges. The major processing of the raw material was done by the job worker and certain process were done at the hands o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the said decision of the Supreme Court is applied to the present case, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion that the goods received back by the raw materials supplier from the job worker, cannot be regarded as fully manufactured goods, and as such, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal having regard to the activity undertaken by the respondent are to be regarded as a manufacturing process, as required under Rule 57F(2)/57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 8 . On an analysis of the entire order of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has reached the correct conclusion. Hence, we do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law arising in this case, so a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates