Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the removal of inputs to job workers for manufacture of packed tea for export fell within Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and whether the refund claims of Modvat credit required reconsideration under Rule 57F(3).
Analysis: The inputs were sent outside the factory for processing in connection with export production, and Rule 57F(2) permitted removal of inputs for carrying on operations outside the factory and, where goods were exported under bond, did not require their return to the factory. The fact that packed tea was manufactured at the job workers' premises did not, by itself, make the movement impermissible under Rule 57F(1) alone, since the assessee could opt for either statutory route where available. The lower authorities had not recorded a finding that the procedural conditions for Rule 57F(2) were violated or that the exported goods were not covered by the rule. The entitlement to refund under Rule 57F(3) also had not been properly examined on the prescribed conditions and notification.
Conclusion: The clearance of the inputs was held to be covered by Rule 57F(2), and the refund claims were required to be examined afresh with reference to Rule 57F(3); the assessee succeeded to that extent.