9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , who are the manufacturer of cotton fabrics, sent partly processed fabrics from their units to outside premises for undertaking the job work. The respondents carried out process like bleaching, dyeing, printing in their factory and thereafter, removed such semi-finished fabrics for further processes like carbonising, heat settings, etc. on full payment of duty. The job worker on receipt of the fabrics took credit of duty paid by the respondents in his RG 23A Part-II account and that of fabrics in RG23 Part-I account. The job worker, after doing the required processes, sent back the fabrics to the respondents adding his job charges in the original clearance value and after payment of full rate of duty. The respondents, on receipt of such fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final process including the folding and packing they had sent the goods to the respective customers. 4.The Commissioner (Appeals) had made the following observations. "I find that the appellants have been denied the deemed credit as per Explanation-II appended to Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated 23-9-96. This explanation states that the benefit of this Notification shall not apply in cases where the processed goods itself are used as inputs. The lower authority has held that since the appellants are using processed fabrics for further processing and clearing the same to the merchant manufacturers/exporters and claiming the deemed credit, the same is not admissible to them. However, I find from the perusal of the invoices iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for further processing and not the processed fabrics, therefore, the deemed credit under the said notification has been wrongly denied to them". 5.The revenue appeal challenges the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) by simply reiterating the contents of the order-in-original without giving any clear cut counter to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6.Heard both sides. 7.It is noted that, here the respondents received grey fabrics for undertaking certain processes. After completing some processes in their factory these are sent out to job worker. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that, job working only involved the process of washing, though the facts enumerated in the adjudication order, talks about the job worker havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job worker's premises cannot be treated to be the entry of a different input than the input which was initially received from the supplier (Customer). In other words, in my view, the second time entry (re-entry) cannot be treated as a receipt of input for the purposes of Explanation-II. In my view the Explanation-II can apply only where there is a direct supply from the customers to the respondents in the form of partly processed duty paid fabrics. In this case, the respondents having received "grey fabrics" initially, notwithstanding the intermediate processes carried out by the job workers outside the factory, such intermediate processing and receipt of such processed fabrics would not come in way of availment of deemed credit. 9.The vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
