SHIVAJI WORKS LTD. Vs. CCE, PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a manufacturer of brake drums for motor vehicles. It received rough castings from Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. (Kirloskar for short) which it fashioned into drums. The castings made by Kirloskar were sent by it in terms of Rule 57F(3) to its job workers who conducted operation on it and removed fettling and shot blasting to removed existed material. Thereafter the job worker sent the goods to the appellant directly. The appellant thereupon credited the duty paid on the castings by Kirloskar. This was objected to by issue of show cause notice on the ground that the invoices which were issued by Kirloskar showed the names of the job worker and not the appellant. The notice also alleged that the "invoice did not come directly to the appellant but was rotated through different parties". Adjudicating on the notice, the Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), denied the credit and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that although the invoices bore upon the names of the job workers they also bore Kirloskar's name -credit therefore can rightly be taken. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v/s. Konark Wires (P) Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 315. The departmental representative contends that the duty payable by the job worker on the value addition has not been paid.

(2.) The invoices in question in fact were addressed to the appellant although they bear endorsement that delivery is through the job worker who is named. It is therefore not correct to say that the invoices were not addressed to the appellant. The fact that the invoices of the appellant also bore the name of another party is in our opinion itself no ground for denial of the credit. The contention of the departmental representative as to the duty liability, if any, of the job worker does not appear relevant to the proceedings before us. If the department were of the view that duty was to be paid by job worker, it still is open to it to proceed against the job worker in accordance with law. A similar view had been taken by the Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in Emcee Crown Corks (P) Ltd. v/s. CCE, 2002 (50) RLT 803. We therefore do not find sufficient ground to deny the credit. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.