SWARAJ MAZDA LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that inputs were directly sent to the job worker without receipt in their factory. The contention of the appellant is that they filed necessary intimation under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules for sending the inputs for further processing to their job worker. The goods were received under the cover of invoice where the name of the appellant as well as the job worker is mentioned and the goods were directly received by the job worker and after due process, processed inputs were received in the factory of the appellant which was used in the manufacture of the final product which were cleared on payment of duty, therefore, the denial of credit is not sustainable. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in and the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE reported in .

(2.) THE contention of the revenue is that they adopted their own procedure. On receipt of the goods, the job worker prepares the challans under Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules and the appellant reversed 10% of the credit in respect of the inputs which were sent for job work. The contention is that as the appellants were reversing credit of 10%, therefore, the goods are entered in the factory of the appellant and without this they cannot reverse the credit.

(3.) THE Large Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) had also taken the same. Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that