TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (10) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r manufacturer, of the intermediate product which was in the nature of components intendend for manufacture of the specified end product. They have also filed declaration under Rule 57A declaring plastic raw material as one of the inputs. The other manufacturer viz. M/s. Perival Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, who are the job worker, however, cleared the goods on payment of duty and sent back the same to the appellants and the appellants took MODVAT credit in respect of the duty paid on the components. The learned lower authority had denied the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of the input which was removed for the manufacturer of components for the reason that they had not complied with the requirements of Rule 57F(2). The learned Collec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k to the appellants' factory without payment of duty. 4. The point that arises for determination is whether the appellants can be taken to have complied with the requirement of Rule 57F(2) and are eligible for MODVAT credit on the inputs which were removed from the factory and out of which some intermediate goods were manufactured by the job workers who cleared the same on payment of duty. For the purpose of convenience the relevant portion of Rule 57F(2) is reproduced below : "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) a manufacturer may, with the permission of the Collector of Central Excise and subject to such terms and conditions and limitations as he may impose, remove the inputs as such, or after the inputs have been par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or export on payment of appropriate duty of excise as if such inputs have been manufactured in the said factory. Thus removal of the inputs on which MODVAT Credit had been taken can also be made for purpose other than repair, refining or reconditioning and manufacture of intermediate goods etc. for home consumption also on payment of appropriate duty. The former category of removal i.e. for manufacture of intermediate goods etc. is thus not treated as clearances for home consumption. The appellants claim that clearances have been made in terms of Rule 57F(2) and pleaded that they have complied with the requirement of Rule 57F(2). The appellants in the present case had been given permission under Rule 57F(2) and got the intermediate product ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Rules. Under the MODVAT Scheme and the Rules framed thereunder, there is no specific provision for any intermeditate product manufactured in terms of the permission granted under Rule 57F(2) to be cleared without payment of duty, However, exemption has been granted under Notification 214/86 to the goods manufactured on job work basis and which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. But for this Notification, goods manufactured at the job workers premises would have had to pay duty. Now the question is where the job worker pays the duty, is there any provision in the rule, holding that the appellant will come out of the purview of Rule 57F(2). In our view, in case the job worker pays the duty, he takes the cons....