CCE Vs. TAMBRAPARANI CONTAINERS (P.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the Revenue challenge the order in Appeal No. 451/203 Pondicherry dated 18.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chennai whereby the Commissioner has set aside the order of the original authority.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of metal tin containers classifiable under sub -heading 7310.00 of the CETA, 1985. Proceedings were initiated against them for contravention of Rule 57F(4) on the ground that the appellants failed to get the goods back from the job workers within the stipulated time and that they have contravened Rule 57F(11) ibid inasmuch as they have taken credit after expiry of the period of 180 days and failed to pay the duty amount of Rs. 45,511/ - arising on account of re -calculation and the proceedings culminated in the order of adjudication passed by the original authority whereby he has ordered recovery of the alleged wrongly availed credit of Rs. 1,33,760/ - under Rule 57U(1) of the CE Rules, 1944 apart from demand of a differential duty of Rs. 45,511/ -under Rule 57F(11) of the Rules ibid. On appeal, before the Commissioner (Appeals), the commissioner (Appeals), set aside the order of the original authority and hence this appeal by the Revenue.

(3.) The grounds on which the Revenue has come in appeal is that the goods have been received back from the job worker after the expiry of the stipulated period of 180 days which is beyond the stipulated period of time and this factual position is not denied by the assessee. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the provisions of Rule and therefore, they are liable to pay duty and penalty is also imposable for the above violation on their part.