1996 (8) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the dispute and the findings thereon by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore, have been set out in the impugned order dated 20-12-1991 of that authority as follows : "The Assistant Commissioner has disallowed credit of Rs. 1,16,178.57 in respect of aluminium ingots in these cases on the ground that the inputs coming to the factory of the appellant. On this point, the appellants have pleaded that as per Trade Notice No. 38/86, dated 17-7-1986 issued by the Indore Commissionerate raw material/semi-finished goods can be sent either directly or otherwise for availing credit under rule 57F (2). I am not in agreement with the appellant's stand. From the records, I find that M/s. BALCO Ltd. Korba despatched 11.550 M.T. of alumi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocess, operation etc. to be done by the job worker be given. Particularly S.No. 5 requires the manufacturers to state specifically whether the inputs are supplied directly job worker without first bringing them to the factory of the applicant. This requirement cannot be dispensed with. Similarly the challan in annexure II required the manufacturer to indicate date and time of issue of the inputs. From the parent factory i.e. applicant manufacturer. In the present case the appellant has not followed the procedure as prescribed by the Trade Notice. Either he should have followed the procedure strictly as per rule 57F(2) i.e. inputs are received in his factory under GP from the supplier and then removed to the job worker under cover of challan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he challans to the job worker as envisaged thereunder. Moreover, the input has been sent directly by the supplier to the job worker with endorsement, `A/c Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd., Pithampur' made in the related Gate Pass against the column `Name and address of consignee'. Also, there is no dispute regarding the duty-paid nature of the inputs and of their use in the manufacture of the final product. In such a context, the mere fact that the appellants failed to adhere strictly to the modified procedure for sending the input directly to the job worker under Rule 57F(2), should not come in the way of extending Modvat credit benefit to the inputs. It is seen that in the case of C.C.E. v. Roshan Tin Printers - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 325, the supplier....