MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi who has confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,70,33,595/ - raised under four separate show cause notices and directed its recovery under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, upholding the charge of contravention of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules for the reason that the appellants removed inputs to job workers without payment of duty. The Commissioner has held that the appellants are not covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(2) as contended by them.

(2.) WE have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate who submits that the issue is covered by the Tribunal's earlier Orders No. A/746 to 750/95 -NB dated 15.9.1995 and Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR who seeks to distinguish the same.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the submissions of both sides, we find that the appeals before us today are identical to the ones disposed of by the Tribunal's earlier order cited supra wherein also the issue of eligibility to the benefit of modvat credit on inputs of fuel tanks and struts used in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The Tribunal has held in para 10 of its order that the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii) are not applicable to the facts of the case. Para 10 is reproduced below: