ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Originally a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants proposing to deny the modvat credit in respect of Zin ingots on the ground that same has been availed by the appellants at the time of sending the said input directly to the job worker’s factory from the inputs suppliers whereas as per Board’s instructions the same was to be availed after the receipt of the processed goods.
2. Subsequently, the matter came up before Tribunal and was disposed of vide Order No. C-I/2956/WZB.2000 dtd.30/08/2000. Paragraph 2 of the said order reads as follow:-
“The contention of the representative of the appellant that it was unaware of the correct procedure which was notified by the Board much later is not convincing. However, another aspect has to be considered. The Board’s circular of 1996 provided that credit in such a situation can be taken after the inputs are received from the job worker. If that is the correct view, it would then follow that the appellant would be entitled to the credit a little after it actually took it, on the assumption that the entire quantity has been received by it from the job worker. That would in effect amount to saying while confirming the order denying the credit, that the appellant could be entitled to take credit from the date on which the goods were received by him a little later. The spirit of the Board’s order is evidently that it has to be ensured that the goods are actually received before the credit is taken. This is a reasonable proposition. On this being pointed out, the representative of the appellant undertakes to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner that all the inputs which were sent by the manufacturer has been received in the hands of the manufacturer after if was alloyed., by production of evidence within two months from the receipt of this order. If he is so able to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant would be entitled to credit.”
3. In Denovo proceedings the credit was against rejected on the ground that the Zinc alloys manufactured by the first job workers has been further sent directly to the second job workers for manufacture of casting and the appellant has not been able to place on record the receipt of the casting from the second job worker. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has observed as under:-
“From the above documents, it is merely established that the Zinc Ingots procured from Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Chittorgarh was directly sent to Sun Metal Industries, Ahmedabad and after processing, the processed goods sent to M/s Gujarat Die Casting Industries, Pandesara, Surat for further process. It doses not establish that all the inputs which were sent by the appellant has been received in the hands of the appellant after it was alloyed. Similarly, in respect of Invoice No. 626/24-6-94; 980/12-8-94; 1112/5-9-94; 1624/28-11-94 of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Chittorgarh, the aforesaid procedure was adopted by the appellant i.e. Zinc Ingots procured from M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Chittorgarh were directly sent to M/s Sun Metal Industries, Ahmedabad for conversion and after conversion into Zinc based alloys, Zinc based alloys were sent to M/s Gujarat Die Casting Industries, Surat for further processing. As such, I hold that the appellants do not have evidence to prove that the inputs which were sent by the appellant has been received in the appellants’ hand after it was alloyed. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order Passed by the Original Authority.”
4. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that they have all documentary evidence on the record to show the receipt of casting manufactured by the second job worker i.e. M/s. Gujarat Die Casting Industries. However, he fairly admits that the said documents were not placed before the lower authorities and only the documents pertaining to the first job worker for production of zinc alloys was placed. He submits that given an opportunity, they would be able to satisfy the authorities about the receipt of the finally processed goods from the job worker.
5. In view of the above statement made by the learned advocate, I am left with no other alternative but to once again remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for Denovo consideration. Needless to say that the appellants would be given an opportunity to place the documentary evidence as regards the receipt of the casting from the second job worker on records.
6. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in open court)