TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Job-Workers' Modvat Credit Rights</h1> <h3>Vidharbha Cables & Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur</h3> Vidharbha Cables & Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - 2012 (275) E.L.T. 588 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Determination of manufacturer status between raw material supplier and job-workers.3. Applicability of modvat credit under Rule 57B and Notification No. 175/86.4. Compliance with the procedure under Rule 57F(2) for duty payment.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 57F(2)The appeal challenged an order by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, regarding the alleged violation of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant contended that the order lacked merit and cited legal precedents to support their argument that following Rule 57F(2) was not mandatory. The Tribunal, in line with previous judgments, emphasized that Rule 57F(2) is a facility and not compulsory, affirming that manufacturers have the discretion to choose whether to adhere to this rule or avail the modvat facility under Rule 57A.Issue 2: Determination of Manufacturer StatusThe dispute centered on determining the manufacturer status between the raw material supplier and the job-workers. Legal references, including judgments by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, established that job-workers are considered manufacturers in their own right. The Tribunal reiterated that the manufacture undertaken by job-workers cannot be attributed to the raw material supplier, emphasizing that the job-workers' clearances should not be combined to determine exemption eligibility under relevant notifications.Issue 3: Applicability of Modvat CreditRegarding the applicability of modvat credit under Rule 57B and Notification No. 175/86, the Tribunal highlighted that the duty liability discharged by job-workers under the notification allowed for credit at a higher rate. Citing specific provisions of the notification, the Tribunal concluded that the higher credit availed by the appellant was permissible as per the government's policy to grant such credits.Issue 4: Compliance with Rule 57F(2) ProcedureThe Collector contended that the appellant should have followed the procedure under Rule 57F(2) instead of availing the modvat credit at a higher rate. However, the Tribunal, supported by legal findings and a decision by the Madras Bench, emphasized that manufacturers cannot be compelled to adhere to Rule 57F(2) and have the autonomy to choose the modvat facility under Rule 57A.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, ruling in favor of the appellant and the job-workers, emphasizing the discretionary nature of following Rule 57F(2) and affirming the legality of availing modvat credit under Rule 57B and relevant notifications.
TaxTMI 