TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the premises of the job worker subject to imposed and procedure prescribed for a financial year. In the present case, the Respondent had not got the permission from the Commissioner, therefore, proceedings were initiated against the Respondents demanding duty amounting to Rs. 87,35,410/- being the duty on one soap given free and extra quantity cleared as free during the period from July 2001 to June 2002. The lower authority dropped the proceedings against the Respondent on the ground that no differential duty is payable by the Respondent, as the duty already paid for the goods covered is in order and further, the permission for clearance from job worker's premises has been granted without indicating any specific period. The Revenue was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner (A) and has come before this Tribunal on the following grounds: (i) The Commissioner's finding that the permission granted by the Department in 2000-2001 did not specify the period for which the permission is valid and therefore, it can be presumed that it is valid till such the permission is rescinded, is not legal and proper. The permission granted is under Sub Rule (6) of Rule 57AC of CEC, 1944 in view of their newly introduced Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, the above permission granted automatically cease to exist. Therefore, the Respondent was bound to make an application to the Commissioner for permission for the relevant financial year w.e.f. 1.7.2001. (ii) Even under Sub Rule (6) of 57AC, the permission given is f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is so, particularly in the present issue. The earlier permission given cannot be taken as a cover for 'subsequent period. (vii) Without appreciating the facts, the Commissioner has traversed beyond his jurisdiction by sitting in judgment on the alleged inaction on the part of the Commissioner in granting/refusing permission. In the circumstances, the unwarranted remarks on the Commissioner/Commissionerate at Para 9 of the Order in Appeal need be expunged. 3. The learned departmental representative reiterated the grounds of appeal 4. Shri V.S. Sejupal represented the Respondents. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the appellant's own case as reported in 2003 (158) ELT 357 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein the valuation of mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also a finding that the procedure prescribed under Notification 214/86 has been complied with while removing the goods from job worker's premises. After examining Board's Circular 28.10.2002 [reported in 2002 (53) RLT M25], the lower authority has also arrived at a conclusion that duty already paid by the Respondent for the goods cleared from the job worker's premises is in order. The Commissioner (A) has also upheld the view of the lower authority. The Commissioner (A) in his order has passed certain remarks to the effect that the Respondent had actually applied for permission and the Commissionerate is sitting over the papers and neither granting permission nor refusing the same. He has stated that whether the Commissionerate expects the....