2010 (3) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri P.V. Patankar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the appellant opposes a refund claim filed by the respondent. During the period of dispute (April to December 2001), the respondent had undertaken job work on the billets (raw material) supplied by the principal manufacturer and had returned the job-worked goods (wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o any other person. By a corrigendum to the notice, the department added one more ground for rejection of the refund claim, which was to the effect that the job-worked goods was not the final product of the respondent. The proposals in the show-cause notice and the corrigendum thereto were contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fuels including furnace oil. We have not found any elaboration of this point in the Revenue's memo of appeal, nor has the learned SDR been able to add anything to it. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that what was claimed by them was only re-credit of the Cenvat credit reversed earlier in their account. It is submitted that the respondent was entitled t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....turer could be availed by the job worker unaffected by the provisions of Rule 57C. The said Rule had injuncted a manufacturer of final product from taking Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty. The Larger Bench decision proceeded on the premise that Rule 57C was not appl....