V.K. Agrawal, (T) Member
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether they were eligible to take the MODVAT credit of the duty paid by the job worker.
2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture safety seat belts and power windows; that they had taken the MODVAT credit in respect of inputs namely Sash guide and tongue plate; that they had removed the said inputs to job workers under the provisions of Rule 57 F (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the job worker had used the said inputs in the manufacture of intermediate product namely Nylon moulding Sash Guide and plastic Moulding Tongue Plate and cleared the same on payment of duty to the Appellants under the cover of invoices issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Challan under which initially the inputs were removed to the job worker were also received along with the inputs; that the Commissioner under the impugned order had disallowed the MODVAT credit of the duty paid by the job worker on the ground that since the job worker has to use its own material in substantial quantity to the inputs supplied by the Appellants, they were not eligible to remove the inputs under Rule 57 F(4).The learned Advocate , further submitted that Rule 57 F(4) does not anywhere provide that job worker can not add any material on its own or that job worker has not to pay the duty. Rule 57 F is simply a provision of sending the inputs or partially processed goods to the job worker and its receipt back by the Appellants factory; that it nowhere debar the availment of credit; that similar matter had come up before the Tribunal wherein it has been held that the assesses are eligible for availment of MODVAT credit. The decisions are:-
(1) Facit Asia Ltd. vs. Collector 1991 (54) ELT 347 (Tribunal) = (2002-TIOL-128-CESTAT-MAD)
(2) CCE vs., Konark Wires Pvt. Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 315 (T) = (2002-TIOL-127-CESTAT-KOL)
(3) Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. CCE 1999 (32) RLT 397 (T)
(4) TVS Suzuki vs. CCE 1999 (32) RLT 637(T)
3. Countering the arguments M/s. Neeta Lal Butalia, learned Senior Departmental Representative, reiterated the findings as contained in the reply to the show cause notice and emphasized that the Appellants had already taken the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs which were removed by them to the premises of job worker; that the job worker was not required to pay any duty and as such they can not take the MODVAT credit of the duty paid by the job worker.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Rule 57 F (4) provided that the inputs can be removed as such or after they have been partially processed by the manufacturer of the final products to job worker under the cover of a challan for the purpose of carrying out any operation necessary for manufacture of the final product or for manufacture of intermediate products necessary for the manufacture of final products. The appellants have sent the inputs as such to the job worker who has manufactured the intermediately products out of the inputs provided by the Appellants and also after adding certain inputs from his own side. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the job worker has paid the Central Excise duty on the intermediate product which were sent back by the job worker. Once the job worker has paid the duty, the Appellants who are the manufacturer of the final products, are eligible to take the credit of the duty paid by the job worker. It can not be claimed by the Revenue that any prejudice has been caused to them by the act of the appellants in taking the MODVAT credit of the duty paid by the job worker at the intermediary stage inasmuch as the Appellants had taken that much credit on receipt of the duty paid intermediate goods which had already been paid by the job worker to the Revenue. This was the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Facit Asia Ltd. (supra) which has been followed by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Coimbatore, (2002 (149) ELT 743) also. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the Appeal.