2017 (5) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - job-work - machined/ finished forgings received from the job worker - The Revenue objected to such credit on the ground that the appellants attempting to take double benefits on the inputs which is not permitted by the law - Revenue felt that the job worker should have followed the procedure under N/N. 214 of 86-CE and availed exemption - Held that - the appellants paid central excise duty, both at the stage of procuring rough forgings and also at the time of receiving back the machined forgings from the job worker. When the duty has been paid the entitlement for credit follows - similar issue decided in the case of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus CCE & ST. - Meerut-I 2014 (3) TMI 203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty Exemption under N/N. 214/86-CE. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job-workers - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding availing credit on machined/forgings received from job workers.
2. Allegation of attempting to take double benefits on inputs.
3. Contention that job worker should have followed specific provisions for manufacturing and clearance of intermediate goods.
4. Disallowance of credit and imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the present appeals revolves around the credit availed by the main appellant on machined/finished forgings received from job workers. The dispute arises from the main appellant sending rough forgings to job workers for further processing, availing credit on the same, and then receiving back the machined forgings to be used in the manufacture of final products. The Revenue objected to this credit, alleging that it amounted to double benefits on inputs, which is not permitted by law. The Revenue contended that the job worker should have followed specific provisions for manufacturing and clearance of intermediate goods, leading to proceedings against the main appellant and the job worker for demanding and recovering cenvat credit and imposing penalties under the Rules.

2. The main appellant argued that they followed the correct procedure under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by clearing rough forgings to the job worker for further processing and return. They emphasized that the job worker paid full duty on the intermediate goods and cleared them to the main appellant, who then availed credit on such duty. The main appellant cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case, where it was held that the credit taken by manufacturers cannot be denied based on the job worker not availing a specific notification, and this decision was supported by subsequent Tribunal rulings.

3. The Revenue, represented by the Ld. AR, reiterated the findings of the original authority regarding non-fulfillment of conditions under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the appellant. However, upon hearing both sides and perusing the appeal records, the Tribunal noted that the denial of credit was based on the perception of double benefit to the appellant at different stages of the process and the expectation that the job worker should have followed a specific notification for exemption.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and found that the denial of credit was not sustainable. It emphasized that when central excise duty was paid by the appellants at both the rough forgings and machined forgings stages, the entitlement for credit naturally followed. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the notification in question was conditional and could not be mandated to be followed by the job worker. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar set of facts was examined, and the decision supported the appellants' position that the credit of duty paid on intermediate products cannot be denied when inputs have already been subjected to duty at earlier stages. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals.

← Previous Next →