TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (9) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....637/91 & 647/91 (172 to 193-AHD)CE/AHD/COLLR(A). 3. Out of the appeals disposed of by the Collector (Appeals), only the above appellant's appeals are taken for disposal. 4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts and components of Material Handling Equipments falling under sub-heading 8431.00 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were also holding Central Excise Licence. They had filed classification lists claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended and were also availing Modvat facility on inputs. It was later found that they were processing/manufacturing excisable goods on job work basis from the inputs/raw materials supplied by M/s. Elecon on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les, 1944, with the permission of Collector of Central Excise, should be returned to the supplier, in this case M/s. Elecon Engineering after carrying out the required .processing, without payment of duty. The ultimate duty payment would be done by M/s. Elecon Engineering. He has held that the entire scheme of Rule 57F(2) does not contemplate payment of any duty by the job worker/processor on such processed inputs, while returning the same to the assessee. He has held that such processed inputs are required to be returned to the supplier under duplicate challan without payment of duty. The ld. Collector has observed that a similar benefit has been provided under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986, which exempts the specified good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Collector, hence these appeals. 6. We have heard Shri P.M. Dave, ld. Advocate, for the appellants and Shri K.K. Dutta, ld. JDR for the Revenue. 7. Shri Dave submitted that the job workers were doing work on principal to principal basis. The raw materials received from M/s. Elecon Engineering were subjected to process of manufacture and the intermediate product that emerged was dutiable, as it was clearly covered in the tariff entry and the same was required to suffer excise duty. It is his plea that Rule 57F(2) did not lay down any provision for non-payment of duty by the job-worker by availing the concessional rate of duty. Rule 57F(2) also did not grant any exemption for the goods manufactured by the job worker. Although Notificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on M/s. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. has been set aside by Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 7222/1991 by their judgment dated 29-10-1991 and that they have approved the findings given by the Tribunal in the case of Facit Asia Ltd. ld. Advocate also referred to Rules 13 and 56B to support his arguments inasmuch as to say that in these rules, it has been made obvious, that goods removed should be brought back "without payment" of duties. As Rule 57F(2) was independent rule, there was no mention of bringing back the goods "without payment" of duty. 8. Shri K.K. Dutta, ld. JDR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 9. We have carefully considered the pleas made by both the sides and have perused the findings of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specified that even waste need not be returned to factory if appropriate duty had been paid thereon. We also find force in this submission. We clearly notice that Rule 57F(2) does not envisage return of inputs after completion of processing resulting in a semi-finished goods or intermediate goods without payment of duty. Therefore, the job-workers in these cases, admittedly are independent manufacturers and they are utilising the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. They are, therefore, entitled to enjoy the concessional benefit of the said notification. As rightly held by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 7222/91, they cannot be compelled to utilise the benefit under....