Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
C.C.E., Kanpur vs M/S. Super Lamination Plastic Ltd. on 9 February, 2001
ORDER
S.S. Kang
1. Revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court :
"1. Whether the permission for job work which was a statutory requirement under rule 57F (2) of CER 1944 can be overlooked.
2. Whether the defence reply of the party can be relied upon which stated that printing and stiching machines were out of order since March, 93, whereas at time of visit of officers on 26.10.93, no such plea was put-forth by the party.
3. Whether the failure to obtain job work permission is condonable without proper verification of records."
2. Heard both sides.
3. The contention of the revenue is that permission for job work is necessary requirement under Rule 57 F (2) of Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal in the final order over-looked this provision of law.
4. The Tribunal in para six of the Final order, after taking into consideration the factual position in respect of goods sent to the job workers and regarding those goods, the manufacturers were maintaining register and the register was taken into possession at the time of visit by the revenue. The Tribunal held that as the revenue had not taken into consideration the goods sent to the job workers while calculating the shortages of raw-material and excess of the finished goods, hence the demand is not sustainable. In the impugned order, there is finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the provisions of Rule 57 F(2) of the Rules are mandatory or the lapse for not following the provisions of this rule, can be overlooked. In the reference application, the revenue is relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of India Paper Pulp vs C.C.E. reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 601 (T), wherein the Tribunal held that failure to obtain permission under Rule 57 F(2) of the Rules for sending the goods to the job workers, is condonable if received the goods in the factory and capable of being verified from the records.
5. In the present case, the lower authorities have not taken into account the goods sent to job workers regarding which proper record, had been maintained by the manufacturer though the same was taken into possession for calculating the excess of final product and short of raw-material. Therefore, on evidence, the impugned order was passed. In view of the above discussion, no question of law, as framed by the revenue, is arisen out of the final order, hence the application for reference is dismissed. (Dictated in Court).