2011 (3) TMI 1137 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit to the job-worker in respect of the inputs received denied - as per Revenue job-worker has not purchased the goods but only procured the goods hence credit is not permissible - Held that - As decided in Exide Industries Ltd. (2008 (1) TMI 190 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) the word procured has been substituted for the word purchase under the CENVAT Credit Rules therefore the credit is admissible in respect of duty paid inputs which were procured. Revenue had not produced any order passed by Hon ble High Court staying or reversing the decision of the Tribunal. As that duty paid nature of the inputs or receipt by the Respondents is not in dispute revenue appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Commissioner's order allowing credit to job-worker for inputs received; Grounds of job-worker not purchasing goods but procuring them; Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules regarding 'procured' vs. 'purchased'; Tribunal's reliance on previous case; Lack of High Court order reversing Tribunal's decision; Dispute over duty paid nature of inputs.

The Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner's order allowing credit to a job-worker for inputs received. The Revenue contended that the job-worker had procured, not purchased, the goods, making credit impermissible. The Commissioner relied on a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Exide Industries Ltd., where it was held that under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 'procured' replaced 'purchased,' making credit admissible for duty paid inputs that were procured. The Revenue had appealed this decision to the High Court, but no order reversing the Tribunal's decision was presented. The Tribunal noted that the duty paid nature of the inputs received by the Respondents was undisputed. Consequently, the Tribunal found no issues with the Commissioner's order and dismissed the appeal. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by the judges Shri S.S. Kang and Shri M. Veeraiyan.