9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n them apart from confiscating the moulds with redemption fine of Rs. two lakhs. 2. The appellants' contention was that the moulds having been supplied to M/s. Showpla India Ltd. with the prior permission of the Department in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57S(8), the credit taken in respect of moulds had been debited in the PLA. They had also sought to interpret the words "job worker" in Rule 57S(8) to mean any person using the moulds for production of goods in accordance with the specifications given by the supplier of the moulds and nothing more. The Commissioner on the other hand had taken the view that as regards the meaning of the term 'job worker', there was no distinction between the definition of 'job worker' given in Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner also found that there was mis-statement on the part of the appellants with intention to evade duty justifying the imposition of penalty. 3. Arguing the case of the appellants, Shri G. Shiv Dass, ld. advocate submitted that Modvat credit had been denied to appellants only on the ground that M/s. Showpla India Ltd. cannot be treated as 'job worker' as no raw material was supplied by the appellants to M/s. Showpla India Ltd. and that the transactions between the appellants and M/s. Showpla India Ltd.for the sale and purchase of TV cabinets was on a principal to principal basis. It is argued by the ld. Counsel that the expression 'job worker' in Rule 57S(8) cannot be interpreted on the basis of the meaning given to 'job worker' in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he words 'job worker' has therefore to be seen in the context of the scheme of sub-rules (8) to (10) and not on the basis of definition of 'job worker' in other exemption Notifications whose objects were entirely different. There was therefore no warrant for importing the definition of 'job worker' in exemption Notification 214/86 or other similar Notifications which deal with entirely different situations. Further, if the meaning of 'job worker' in those Notifications were applied to Rule 57S(8), the scheme of Rule 57S(8) to (10) would get completely distorted since the person referred to as 'job worker' in Rule 57S(8) was not the person entrusted with any raw materials or inputs but a person who has been given moulds and dyes which were c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereon. Sub-rule (9) puts a time-limit of three months for bringing back the said moulds and dyes and the goods manufactured using the said moulds/dyes unless the period is extended by the Commissioner. Sub-rule (10) provides that if the moulds'dyes removed under sub-rule (8) are not received back within the time allowed, duty shall be paid equivalent to the credit taken on the said moulds/dyes. On a close reading of the said three sub-rules, it does not appear that the rule making authority had any intention to give the expression 'job worker' used in sub-rule (8), the meaning given to it in the exemption Notifications like Notification No. 214/86. In the said Notifications the 'job worker' is supplied with raw material by the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
