Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Prakash Fabricators And Galvanizers P. ... vs C.C.E. And C. on 4 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994(74)ELT319(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the Order in Appeal No. PPM-1137/AUR-187/87, dated 7-4-1988 rejecting the appellant's appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are doing job work on behalf of M/s. Jyoti Structures. They are receiving steel materials, which are being purchased by M/s. Jyoti Structures from various sources from the market and supplied to them for doing job work. The appellants took deemed Modvat credit in respect of those inputs on the basis of delivery challans issued by M/s. Jyoti Structures. Hence an objection was raised that in terms of Ministry's Order No. D-22/5/86-TRU, dated 7-4-1986, the inputs should have been purchased by the appellants themselves and since they were received from Jyoti Structures on delivery challans, deemed Modvat credit should not have been taken and this objection was sustained by the Asst. Collector by ordering reversal of Modvat credit taken during the period October and November 1986. The appeal taken before the Collector (Appeals) by the appellant was also rejected. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal.
3. After hearing both sides we find that the only objection for denial of the Modvat credit is that the appellant has not purchased the inputs themselves and they have acquired it from M/s. Jyoti Structures, who only have purchased these inputs and supplied to the appellant for getting the job work done. On the question of requirement of purchase of inputs by the person availing deemed Modvat credit, the CBEC, under their circular dated 1-3-1989, have clarified that deemed Modvat credit facility will be available in the case of purchase as well as stock transfers. In this case, the job work is done for M/s Jyoti Structures, who have admittedly, purchased these inputs from the market sources and these marked purchased inputs have been sent for job work to the appellant. Hence the objection taken by the department that deemed Modvat credit is not available cannot be sustained, since it is a case of transfer of M/s. Jyoti Structures to the appellant for purpose of getting the job work done and is also squarely covered by the Board's circular clarifying the position, subsequently issued. This is the view we have taken in a similar case in the case of Foundry Workshop & Refineries vide our Order No. 348/93-WRB, dt. 11-3-1993 [since reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 534 (Tri.]. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential restoration of the deemed credit to the appellants.