2011 (7) TMI 120 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - cenvat credit under Rule 3(1)- job worker - Revenue submission that under rule 3(1), respondents was not eligible for availing credit, it has to noted that once the respondent is treated as manufacturer, he is eligible to take the credit - Respondents submitted that the ground taken in the show cause notice was that the respondents is only job worker and not manufacturer - According to the Board Circular as well as settled law the job worker is the manufacturer - - Held that - since all the goods manufactured have been exported, question of payment of duty or availing exemption, does not arise - It is settled law that export goods cannot be treated as exempted goods - Thus, credit is available to the respondents - Further, learned Commissioner has correctly considered and interpreted the provisions of notification No. 52/2000-CE dated 19.10.2000. - Therefore, decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to cenvat credit by a job worker under Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 52/2000-CE dated 19.10.2000 regarding availing of credit for exported goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The main issue in this case was whether the respondent, a job worker, was entitled to cenvat credit under Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The department argued that the respondent, being a job worker, was not eligible for cenvat credit. The show cause notice proposed a duty demand based on the premise that the respondent was a job worker and not a manufacturer. However, the Tribunal found this claim to be incorrect as the respondent was not availing the benefit of a specific notification. Therefore, the department's appeal was deemed liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

Issue 2: The second issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 52/2000-CE dated 19.10.2000 concerning the availing of credit for exported goods. The respondent's counsel argued that as a manufacturer, the respondent was eligible to take credit for the exported goods. It was explained that the law allowed the SEZ unit to process goods outside the SEZ and export them directly without bringing them back to the SEZ. Since the goods were exported, the question of payment of duty or availing exemption did not arise. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, stating that export goods cannot be treated as exempted goods. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had correctly interpreted the provisions of the notification. Therefore, on merits, the Revenue failed to establish a case, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the disposal of the respondents' cross objection.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing them to avail cenvat credit as a manufacturer and confirming their eligibility to claim credit for exported goods under the relevant notification. The decision highlighted the importance of correct interpretation of legal provisions and notifications in determining the entitlement to cenvat credit in such cases.