Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Further, in the case of Facit Asia Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise 1991 (54) ELT 347 the Madras Bench of the Tribunal held that modvat credit cannot be denied to a manufacturer just because his job-workers paid duty on the intermediate components under the normal procedure instead of returning them to the manufacturer without payment of duty under the provisions of Notification No. 214/86. The Tribunal further held that the job-worker cannot be forced to avail the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 and the choice is with him in regard to availment of the benefit of Notification. Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) has clearly held that Rule 57F(2) is only a facility and it cannot be forced upon every manufacturer and it is the manufacturer who has to decide whether he wants to follow such a procedure or he wants to avail the benefit of modvat facility under Rule 57A. This position was also confirmed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in their letter dated 17/10/1988 to the All India Manufacturers Organisation wherein it was made clear that it was entirely the option of the assessee whether to avail of the procedure laid down under Rule 57F(2) or not.