2011 (4) TMI 833 - AT - Central Excise

Modvat credit - job worker - denial of claim as the inputs were used in the manufacture of the goods which were cleared without payment of duty - Held that - The job worker takes the credit of the same his factory, utilises other inputs procured directly by him after taking the Modvat credit on the same and clear the processed goods to the principal manufacturer on payment of duty and the principal manufacturer takes the credit of the same in his factory and utilises such credit for payment of duty on his final products at the time of clearance - See CCE Vadodara Vs. J.H. Kharawala (P) Ltd. 2008 (7) TMI 287 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD & Welspun India Ltd. Vs. CCE Daman 2009 (2) TMI 690 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD wherein held that the appellant is rightly eligible for availing credit - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods cleared by the appellant under Notification No.214/86-CE can be treated as exempted goods.
2. Applicability of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules in the case.
3. Eligibility of the appellant for availing credit for the job work activity.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in job work activity, received inputs from the principal manufacturer for further processing and clearance. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty, contending that no credit is available to the manufacturer of exempted goods. The appellant argued that the goods manufactured by them are neither exempted nor chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Tribunal, citing the case of Vishal Pipes Ltd. Vs. CCE Noida, held that goods cleared under the mentioned notification cannot be treated as exempted goods. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune, stating that the duty liability shifts from the job worker to the principal manufacturer in such cases.

2. The Tribunal further discussed the applicability of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. It was observed that if the job worker takes credit for inputs used in manufacturing goods cleared without payment of duty, and the principal manufacturer also takes credit for the same inputs when clearing final products, there should be no dispute regarding the admissibility of credit. The Tribunal referred to previous cases like CCE Vadodara Vs. J.H. Kharawala (P) Ltd. and Welspun India Ltd. Vs. CCE Daman to support this stance.

3. Based on the discussions and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant is eligible for availing credit for the job work activity. The impugned order demanding duty and imposing penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized the admissibility of credit in scenarios where inputs are used by the job worker and the principal manufacturer, ensuring no dispute arises regarding credit eligibility and duty payment.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal regarding the treatment of goods under specific notifications, the application of Cenvat Credit Rules, and the eligibility of the appellant for availing credit in the context of job work activities.