Krishna Kumar, - (1.)SHRI Arun Chopra, Ld. JDR appeared for the revenue and SHRI J.F. Pochkhanwalla, Sr. Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent in Appeal No. E/2376/01 and as appellant in appeal No. E/2389/01.
(2.)The revenue's appeal is limited to Sections 11AB and 11AC. Since the period involved is March 1994 to February 1995, the provisions of Section 11AB and 11 AC cannot be invoked in revenue's appeal as they came into effect on 28.9.1996. The revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed.
As regards the appeal No. E/2389/01, the Ld. Sr.Advocate interalia submitted that the appellant manufactures medicinal glass bottles and sends them to job workers. In 1987, the appellant has informed the department to clear defective moulds to job worker for reconditioning and thereafter the same were returned to the appellant. The Ld. Sr. Advocate also submitted that they had followed the procedure under Notification 214/86 relating to job worker. Further, he submitted that in 1985 the appellant again wrote to the department to accord permission for clearance under Rule 57F (2). Permission was never denied. In the past one year the said mould were cleared under Rule 57F(3) because of the trade notice issued by the department. The Ld. Sr. Advocate drew my attention to annexure 'A' to the show cause notice and submitted that no reasons have been given by the department as to why exemption was not available to the appellant for the period in question under Rule 57F(2). He also drew my attention to page 71 of the Order-in-Original dated 30.09.98 and pointed out that in 1st paid last line on page 72, it is mentioned that the appellant had been clearing the waste and scrap of aluminium falling under Chapter sub Heading 7602.00 for remaking under Rule 57F(2). However, in the findings the adjudicating authority has recorded that "I find that the assessee had removed unusable mould parts under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for reworking". He also drew my attention to page 19 of his application dated 28.11.87 bringing to my notice that the appellant has asked the department to indicate as to whether there will be problem to clear the same from the job worker back to them and will there be any amount of Excise duty due on the job work items and from various reminders there to it appears that the permission as requested for by the appellant was never accorded though an interim reply dated 18.11.87 on page 27 appears to have been sent to him by the department. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that they have disclosed to the department and it was made clear that the challans are returnable challans and as such the demand raised is badly hit by time bar. In support of his contention the Ld. Counsel relied on the decision in the case of CCE v. Ex-Protecta reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T.76 (Tribunal), V. Vidyasagar v. CC reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T.86 (Tri. Mumbai), Chloride Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T.633 (Tri.) and Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. v. CCH reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T.218 (Tri.LB) and submitted that the issue involved in the present case are squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the aforesaid decisions.

(3.)THE Ld. DR contended that the moulds are not revertable and as such the appellant was not covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(2). THE Ld. DR reiterated the order passed by the lower authorities.