ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The prayer in application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 61,474/- and penalty of identical amount imposed upon the applicant/appellant on the findings that the value of the coils sent by them to their job worker for the purpose of conversion into sheets, are undervalued inasmuch as the same coils were being sold to independent buyers at a higher price. The appellants contention is that the sheets emerged in the job workers factory was being cleared by them directly to the appellant’s customers under their instructions and the entire differential duty was being paid by the applicant to their job worker. One of the contentions of the appellant is that if they would have adopted the course available to them under the provisions of Rule 57F(4), no duty was required to be paid by them at the time of sending the coils to the job workers. The fact that the appellant have not chosen to adopt the said Rule, by itself cannot be made with the ground to reject their plea as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of International Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise vide their order dated 18-3-2005 [2005 (183) E.L.T. 239 (S.C.)] vide which the Tribunal’s order as reported in [1999 (35) RLT 58 CEGAT] was set aside. The demand has also been assailed on the point of limitation.
2. Countering the arguments, Shri Vimlesh Kumar Ld. SDR reiterated the reasoning of the Commissioner submits that the appellant having not adopted the provisions of Rule 57F(4), cannot be now taken shelter of the same.
3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Tribunal’s view that Rule 57F(4), cannot be adopted, if not chosen by the appellant at the time of clearance of the goods has not been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide their judgment cited supra. As such, we are of the view that the appellant has a strong prima facie case. We accordingly allow the stay petition unconditionally.
(Dictated in Court)