2019 (5) TMI 577 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - job-work - semi processed goods which were sent back to the principal manufacturers were exempted goods or not - Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - The goods which were processed by the respondent on being received from the principal manufacturer, which were returned back to the principal manufacturer were not exempted goods since the same subjected to Central Excise duty and responsibility to Central Excise duty on the said goods was on the principal manufacturer as per the provisions of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/03/1986. Demand do not sustain - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Assessment of Service Tax on job work of Metallization of polyester or Plastic Films.
2. Determination of assessable value on stock transfers under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of Service Tax on job work of Metallization of polyester or Plastic Films:
The case involved multiple Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued to the respondent for the alleged non-payment of Service Tax on semi-processed goods sent back to principal manufacturers. The Revenue contended that the value of such goods should attract Service Tax under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondents argued that the goods were not sold but processed under job work, and hence, not liable for Service Tax. The Original Authority accepted the respondent's submission, citing precedents and dropped the demands. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that the goods processed by the respondent were not exempted as they were subject to Central Excise duty at the hands of the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal also referenced a ruling by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Determination of assessable value on stock transfers under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000:
The dispute revolved around the method of determining assessable value on stock transfers under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, in cases where the same goods were sold to independent buyers. The respondent argued that the demand for short payment of Central Excise duty on stock transfers should not be upheld based on a Larger Bench decision by the Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the respondent's position, citing the decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad, and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in both issues, affirming the respondent's contentions and providing them with consequential relief as per the law.