2015 (2) TMI 1010 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of input service credit - Job worker - Held that - The main argument of the learned A.R. is on the admissibility of credit on the service tax paid for job worker service but in that case this Tribunal has not held that job worker is not entitled to take credit but in case if the job worker has not taken exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST in that case the principal manufacturer is entitled to take Cenvat credit of input services. Therefore the facts are not relevant to the facts of the present case but the facts of the case in Aurangabad Auto Engg Pvt Ltd (2011 (6) TMI 171 - CESTAT MUMBAI) are identical to the facts of this case wherein the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit. Therefore relying upon the decision of the decision in Aurangabad Auto Engg Pvt Ltd (supra) I hold that in this case also the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit. - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of input service credit by the adjudicating authority
- Applicability of Cenvat credit for job work goods
- Interpretation of relevant case laws

Analysis:
1. The appellant, involved in manufacturing excisable goods and job work for principal manufacturers, faced denial of input service credit by the adjudicating authority. The appellant cleared goods to the principal manufacturer without charging duty, leading to the dispute over Cenvat credit eligibility related to job work goods.

2. The adjudicating authority initiated proceedings denying Cenvat credit, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) along with the imposition of a penalty. The appellant contested this decision, citing a similar case before the Tribunal and invoking the decision in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd vs CCE, where it was held that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal's decision in Aurangabad Auto Engg Pvt Ltd case supported the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit. Conversely, the Revenue relied on the decision in Royal Touch Aluminium Pvt Ltd case to oppose the credit claim.

4. After considering the arguments and case precedents, the Tribunal, led by Mr. Ashok Jindal, ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the case from those in Royal Touch Aluminium Pvt Ltd, emphasizing the similarity to the Aurangabad Auto Engg Pvt Ltd case where Cenvat credit was allowed. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant consequential relief.

5. The judgment clarified that a job worker could claim Cenvat credit unless exempted under specific notifications, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the credit in this instance. The decision aligned with the precedent set in the Aurangabad Auto Engg Pvt Ltd case, reinforcing the appellant's right to avail Cenvat credit for input services.