TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....job worker M/s. Sun Metal Industries and for conversion into alloy under erstwhile Rule 57(F)(iii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and availed Modvat credit at their end. Lower authorities were of the view that the assessee is not eligible to avail such Modvat credit as they are unable to evidence the receipt back of the goods from job worker. 4. The sequence of the case, in brief, are that the adjudicating authority, vide OIO dated 31-12-1997 confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 6,34,420/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. The assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide stay order dated 26-5-1999 directed assessee to pre-deposit Rs. 3,50,000/- for disposal of case. Accordingly the appellant has deposited the same vide Challan No. 13 dated 21-6-1999. The Commissioner, C.Ex. (Appeals) vide OIA dated 17/18-1-2000 rejected the appeal of the appellant and waived the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed vide OIO dated 31-12-1997. The appellant preferred an appeal before CESTAT. The CESTAT vide order dated 30-8-2000 allowed the appeal, set aside the OIA dated 18-1-2000 and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned order is incorrect. It is her submission that as per the provisions of Rule 57F(3) read with Notification No. 351/86, Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs, sent to the job worker and contained processed intermediate manufacturer can be availed only on the receipt of the said intermediate product in the factory premises. It is her submission that in this case, assessee has availed the Modvat credit on the inputs before the same has been brought into factory as intermediate products. It is also her submission that Tribunal in the two earlier rounds had remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for de novo proceedings, directing the assessee to satisfy the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that all inputs which were sent by the manufacturer has been received back at the assessee's end. It is her submission that the assessee could not produce any additional evidences and more specifically to produce transport documents for the goods received from second job worker located at Surat. It is her submission that as the inputs in question were received in the factory and sent directly to job worker, it is correct on the part of the adjudicating authority, directing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the evidences whether the alloyed products received from the second job worker were used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. There are not required to be looked into at this stage as per the direction of the CESTAT. 5.3 With regard to documents to prove that whether casting received from the second job worker, the adjudicating authority in his findings vide para 4 and 5 are as under :- "4. Accordingly, the assessee has submitted statements showing the quantity of the Zinc, Aluminum and Magnesium sent by the first job-worker M/s. Sun Metal Industries, Ahmedabad to the second job-worker M/s. Gujarat Die Casting Industries, Surat and also the statements showing the quantity of Castings received by them from the second job-worker M/s. Gujarat Die casting Industries, Surat during the period under reference. The statement indicates the supply of three ingredients separately by M/s. Sun Metal Industries, Ahmedabad, to the second job-worker M/s. Gujarat Die casting Industries, Surat, even though the final product is an alloyed product of Zinc, Aluminum and Magnesium. These statements only give the details of the movement of the inputs and semi-processed material ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... non production of the transport document as the job worker is around 150 km away from the assessee's factory, may not carry the case of the Revenue any further as even if the job worker is 150 km away, the records are maintained by job worker, which are statutory/mandatory in the circular dated 4-5-1994, remains undisputed. 12. In view of this, appeal filed by the Revenue in Appeal No. E/368/11 is devoid of merits and is rejected and I uphold the impugned order dated 8-12-2010 as correct and legal. Cross objection filed against such an appeal by the assessee is also disposed of. 13. Appeal No. E/244/11 is an appeal filed by the assessee against order in appeal dated 10-12-2010. 14. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order before me only on the ground that both the lower authorities have rejected the assessee's claim for interest on the amount of pre-deposit which were ordered by the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing and disposing their appeal. 15. After hearing both the sides for some time on the issue, I find that the first appellate authority while concurring that the adjudicating authority's view that the appellant is not entitled fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the amount of pending duty or penalty so determined by the adjudicating authority/Appellate Authority. Whereas in the present case the Appellants have paid the amount of duty or penalty so directed by the Appellate Authority till final disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the payment in question is of duty/penalty pending final outcome of the case in adjudication/appeal. In the present case, proceedings attained finality vide impugned order dated 24-2-2009, wherein the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 6,34,420/- and appropriated the amount of deposit Rs. 4,50,000/- against the said demand. In view of above, the payment made by the Appellants were made against their liability of the Government dues on disposal of stay order is to be treated as a payment of duty/penalty. 6.2 With regard to (ii) issue as above, interest on pre-deposit the amount Rs. 4,50,000/- does not arise as the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 6,34,420/- and appropriated the amount of deposit Rs. 4,50,000/- against the said demand. As the matter has been disposed of by way of appropriation the pre-deposit the further consequential benefits does not ....