2004 (12) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Orders-in-Appeal regarding availing CENVAT credit, double credit on the same input, duty payment by job worker, penalty imposition, adherence to prescribed procedures, Tribunal precedents, contradictory Departmental stands.

Analysis:
The appellants availed CENVAT credit under Rule 57A on certain inputs and faced proceedings for allegedly availing credit twice on the same input. The job worker paid duty on the value of goods produced, including inputs from the appellants, and the appellants availed credit on duty paid by the job worker under Rule 57A. The Revenue contended that the job worker's payment should be deemed a deposit, not duty. However, the Tribunal found this argument baseless, noting the appellants' compliance with prescribed procedures and the duty paid by the job worker covering input values. The Tribunal referenced precedents like Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, Kerala State Electronic Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, and Facit Asia Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise to support the appellants' case. The Tribunal highlighted the Department's contradictory stances towards different assessees, emphasizing that the appellants did not violate any provisions in availing Modvat credit on duty paid by the job worker, leading to the appeal's allowance with consequential relief.