9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chennai whereby the Commissioner has set aside the order of the original authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of metal tin containers classifiable under sub-heading 7310.00 of the CETA, 1985. Proceedings were initiated against them for contravention of Rule 57F(4) on the ground that the appellants failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is that the goods have been received back from the job worker after the expiry of the stipulated period of 180 days which is beyond the stipulated period of time and this factual position is not denied by the assessee. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the provisions of Rule and therefore, they are liable to pay duty and penalty is also imposable for the above violation on their part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed for rejection of the Revenue appeal. 5. Heard Shri A. Jayachandran, learned JDR. He defended the impugned order. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I have also perused the clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance, vide F. No. B.4/7/2000-TRU, dated 3-4-2001. Para 6 of the said clarification reads as under : "6. A specific provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived back from the job worker after the expiry of the stipulated period. There is no dispute about the receipt back of the goods by the assessee-manufacturer duly processed and their use in the manufacture of the final products. Further, the fact that the respondents have reversed 10% of the Modvat credit availed, while sending the goods for job work under Rule 57F(4) remains undisputed. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
