Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 12 November, 2001
JUDGMENT G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the appellants is entitled to modvat credit in respect of the inputs which have been used by the job worker in relation to the process made by the job worker on such inputs sent by the principal manufacturer, which were returned to the principal after the process undertaken by the job worker.
2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paper covered copper strips falling under chapter sub-heading 8544 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They manufactured the said products on a job work basis and also on their own account. The appellant sometimes received the inputs i.e. copper wires and/or rods from their principal manufacturer which, after processing by the appellant, are returned to their principal manufacturer under the provisions of Rules 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules. When they clear such types of materials after processing, they do not pay duty as the duty on the final products are paid by the principal manufacturer. As far as the goods i.e. paper covered copper strips manufactured and finally cleared by the appellant on their own account, they pay duty on clearance. Show cause notice was issued charging the appellant that modvat credit obtained by the appellant was inadmissible on the ground that they have availed inadmissible modvat credit on insulated craft paper used in the processing of copper wire/rods received under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) which were further processed and cleared as paper covered copper strips without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) as it comes under the provisions of Rule 57C of the Rules. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order-in-original. Hence the present appeals.
3. The learned advocate for the appellant invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Polymers v. CCE 2001 (43) RLT 680 where under similar circumstances the two member bench, after referring to the earlier judgment of the Tribunal, has upheld the claim of the job worker. Learned DR reiterates the impugned orders. I have considered the rival submissions and I am of the view that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. I therefore allow the Appeal E/3264/00, setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.
4. As far as the other appeal E/3265/00 is concerned, the inputs which the appellant manufactured have been captively consumed for the manufacture of final products which have been cleared by the appellant themselves and the said final product has also been cleared on job work basis. The circumstances, in my view, is also covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in Jindal Polymers case (supra). Hence this appeal also stands allowed, ordering consequential relief, after setting aside the impugned order.
5. Both appeals allowed.
(Dictated in Court)