TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this appeal under Section 35G(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the petitioner and Shri Jain, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4, were heard on 17-1-2012 and then the learned counsel for the respondents was given more time to cite relevant judgments. After hearing him on 7-2-2012, the judgment came to be reserved. 3. The substantial question of law which falls for determination is : "Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in not following the mandate of judicial discipline and in not considering the direction raised in para 6 of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 19-3-2010 i.e. "The question as to whether the Central Cables Pvt. Ltd., had transferred the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate passes. Admittedly, the Central Cables Pvt. Ltd. have paid job work charges at the rate of Rs. 2/- per kg. to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and after manufacturing wires, the job workers have not only returned the manufactured goods, but also returned the wastes arising in the process of manufacture of wires to the Central Cables Pvt. Ltd. It appears that the job workers, who are small scale industrial units have paid concessional rate of duty while returning the goods to Central Cables Private Limited and the Central Cables Private Limited have claimed full credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. After remand by this Court, CESTAT has passed fresh order on 23-2-2011 [2012 (275) E.L.T. 588 (Tribunal)] signed on 2-3-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey should have followed the procedure under Rule 57F of the said Rules where under the assessee should have taken the credit of the duty paid on the raw material and dispatched the goods for manufacture on job work basis to the job-workers who in turn should have manufactured the goods and cleared the same to the assessee without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. as amended. In other words, the allegation was that the assessee was not entitled to avail the higher modvat credit under Rule 57B read with Notification No. 175/86 and they should have necessarily followed the procedure. The adjudicating authority, who examined the matter came to the conclusion that the transaction between the job-workers and the principal-manufac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities below. (2) Similarly, if respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were the job workers and after manufacturing the intermediate products were liable to return the goods to the suppliers of raw materials, namely, Central Cables Pvt. Ltd., then where was the question of their returning the manufactured goods on payment of duty has not been considered by any of the Authorities below. (3) If the job worker was not liable to pay excise duty while returning the manufactured goods to the supplier of raw materials, then the question of the supplier of the raw materials claiming full credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, does not arise at all. 7. Shri Mishra, learned ASGI in above background has contended that the questions whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. Central Cables Private Limited and it has transferred/supplied that raw material to its job workers directly without undertaking any manufacturing process or operation upon it. The said shifting of raw material is by endorsing the gate passes. Central Cables Private Limited has paid job work charges @ Rs. 2/- per kg. to said job workers who are respondents No. 2 to 4 in present appeal. 10. In the background of these facts, when application of mind by CESTAT is looked into, CESTAT has in para 3 of impugned order made reference to judgment of this High Court in the case of Impact Containers Private Limited v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported at 1996 (85) E.L.T. 213 (Bom.). But then has found that the alumini....