TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of appeal, they have urged the following grounds : 1.  The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the rejected goods were received back by the manufacturers and that they had not complied with the provisions of Rule 173H or 173L by filing D. 3 intimation to the Department. 2.  The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals ) failed to appreciate that the final product manufactured viz. "Seat Kushy" cannot be an input again as it violates the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 read with Rules 57A & 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The Collector (Appeals) failed to appreciate the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lier cleared from the factory on payment of duty. He drew my attention to the reasoning of the learned lower appellate authority reproduced below : Even otherwise for taking credit this is not a relevant factor because `inputs' even as per the definition in the Rule 57A can be the goods produced and captively consumed in the manufacture of the final product in the same factory of production. In other words an assesses if he has to pay duty on goods produced in his own factory for captive use can take the credit of such duty paid to be utilised towards payment of duty on the final product produced by himself again. The fact that he himself is the manufacturer of the inputs and the final product is not a bar in availing the credit. What has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive and have been dismantled. This dismantling obviously resulted in breaking up of the item into various components and thereafter utilisation of the same for manufacture of seat kushy in the respondents' factory out of the parts which would have been found serviceable or usable. In this process, some of the parts would have been discarded. This position was confirmed by the learned Consultant for the respondents. The position that emerges in that defective `seat kushy' which on return to the respondents factory in respect of which MODVAT Credit had been taken were dismantled and only some of the parts were used in the manufacture of the newly manufactured seat kushy. The input, therefore, which had gone into the newly manufactured kushy s....