2009 (9) TMI 660 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the job worker to raise an invoice under Rule 52A when it was not provided in the rules and allowing the job worker to pay duty on credit inputs sent for processing at his end also allowing the credit availed by the assessee on the duty paid by the job workers is correct as it amounts to double credit on the same inputs - Held that - after reversing the modvat credit availed on the inputs sending it to the job worker by the assessee and getting it back after the job work is done and again reversing the credit already reversed and also taking credit on the duty paid by the employer. The issue is rather important to be decided and it requires to be considered, Tribunal decided the issue by following the earlier decision without any discussion, Tribunal is hereby directed to state the case on the question of law framed by drawing a statement of facts for the opinion of this Court

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rules regarding availing Modvat credit.
2. Validity of job worker raising an invoice under Rule 52A.
3. Legality of job worker paying duty on credit inputs.
4. Double credit availed by the assessee on the same inputs.

Interpretation of rules regarding availing Modvat credit:
The case involved a manufacturer availing Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The manufacturer was removing woven fabrics for further processing by a job worker, debiting 10% of the value of partially processed intermediate products/inputs. The job worker then returned the processed goods, raising invoices under Rule 52A for job work charges. The Tribunal, based on a previous order in favor of the assessee, allowed the double availing of Modvat credit. The Department challenged this, seeking clarification on the legality of availing two benefits for a single transaction. The Court directed the Tribunal to provide a detailed statement of facts for consideration.

Validity of job worker raising an invoice under Rule 52A:
One of the questions raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the job worker to raise an invoice under Rule 52A, which was not explicitly provided in the rules. The Court noted that the Tribunal's order lacked detailed discussion on the transaction involving the reversal and re-availing of Modvat credit on inputs sent to the job worker and the duty paid by the employer. The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive examination of this issue due to its significance.

Legality of job worker paying duty on credit inputs:
Another issue raised was the legality of the job worker paying duty on credit inputs sent for processing. The Department questioned the correctness of allowing the job worker to pay duty on such inputs. The Court highlighted the importance of determining whether the job worker's duty payment was in accordance with the law and whether it was permissible under the relevant rules.

Double credit availed by the assessee on the same inputs:
The Department contended that allowing the assessee to avail Modvat credit twice on the same inputs, once for sending them to the job worker and again for receiving them back after processing, amounted to double credit on the same inputs. The Court observed that the Tribunal's decision lacked detailed reasoning and directed the Tribunal to provide a statement of facts for a thorough examination of this issue before the Court.