9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 918 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input - whether the appellant is entitle for availment of cenvat credit in respect of input used for job work goods, which is returned to the principal without payment of duty under N/N. 214/86-CE dated 25-3-1986? - Held that - issue is no longer res-integra in view of judgments in case of Larger bench decision in case of Sterlite Industries(I) Ltd 2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in the manufacture of final product, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provision of Rule 57C - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Whether the appellant is entitled to availment of cenvat credit in respect of input used for job work goods returned to the principal without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25-3-1986. Analysis: The appellant contended that since the final product is cleared on payment of duty at any stage, the cenvat credit for the input used in job work goods should be admissible. The appellant's counsel relied on several judgments to support this argument. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, supported the findings of the impugned order and cited judgments to justify their position. Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Member(Judicial) noted that the issue at hand has been addressed in various judgments, particularly in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. The Member found that in a case cited by the Revenue, the duty payment on job work goods by the principal was not established, unlike the present case where there was no such allegation. The department's argument that the goods were exempted under Notification No. 214/86-CE was deemed different from the circumstances of the case cited by the Revenue. The Member concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in the current scenario and allowed the appeal. The judgment was pronounced in court on 31/07/2017.
|
