2002 (3) TMI 778

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to them by M/s. Non-Ferrous Castings Pvt. Ltd. and have cleared the same without payment of duty. It is an admitted position that the raw material was sent to the appellants under the private challans of the sender and after conversion, the aluminium castings were sent back to the sender of raw material by the appellant under their private challans. As such by holding the appellant as manufacturer of the castings, the demand has been confirmed against them. 2. The appellants have strongly contended that the aluminium ingots were sent by their supplier and they have simply undertaken the job work by converting the same into aluminium castings. The same have been duly returned by them to the supplier of the inputs, who has utilised th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides and have gone through the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has observed as under :- "According to then Rule 57F(3), the principal manufacturer and job worker were required to comply with certain statutory requirements viz. intimation to jurisdictional Asst. Collector before removing such inputs/ semi-processed goods for further manufacture; issuance of challans in Annexure 84 for movement of inputs/partially process goods and its subsequent return to the parent factory and maintenance of accounts of removal and receipts of the same in Annexures 86 and 87 as prescribed in part 5 of CE Manual, 1994-95. In the instant case, it is apparent that the im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule were held to be sufficient compliance for the purposes of Notfn. No. 214/86. As rightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals), the provisions of Rule 57F(3) required a detailed procedure to be followed by the sender of the raw material as also by the job-worker. Such procedure cannot be held of a technical nature. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (T) = RLT-LB-CEGAT-1403, while interpreting the provisions of Rule 57G have observed that the Modvat provisions laying down a procedure to be followed cannot be held to be mere technicalities. In the present matter it is not a case where a minor procedural lapse has taken place. Admittedly the raw material sender has no....