9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 125 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Job work - Whether CENVAT Credit is required to be denied, in view of the provisions of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules to the Respondent with respect to credit taken on common inputs/raw material used in the manufacturing of final product on job work basis under Notification No.214/86-CE dt.25.03.1986 read with Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules - Held that - both the lower authorities have given a categorical finding that Notification No.214/86-CE is, though an exemption notification, but the same is prescribing a procedure to delay the payment of duty and is subject to payment of duty on the finished goods by the supplier of the raw material. Notification No.214/86-CE is only a device to postpone duty payment when read with the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Even if a job worker pays duty on the goods manufactured by him the same will be eligible as CENVAT Credit to the supplier of the raw material making it a totally revenue neutral situation. Following decision of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd Vs CCE Pune 2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI and Kinetic Engn. Ltd Vs CCE Pune-II 2006 (5) TMI 410 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Whether CENVAT Credit can be denied with respect to common inputs under Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules when used in relation to goods manufactured on job work basis under Notification No.214/86-CE read with Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2002/2004. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the first appellate authority, which dropped the demands against the appellant. The issue revolved around the denial of CENVAT Credit concerning common inputs used in manufacturing goods on a job work basis under specific rules and notifications. The Revenue argued that input credit for manufacturing exempted goods on job work basis would not be admissible. However, the Tribunal noted that the case laws cited by the Revenue were not applicable to the present case and that the lower authorities had correctly interpreted the relevant notifications and rules. The Tribunal observed that Notification No.214/86-CE, although an exemption notification, prescribed a procedure to delay duty payment and was subject to payment of duty on finished goods by the raw material supplier. The Tribunal emphasized that even if a job worker paid duty on manufactured goods, the supplier of raw material would still be eligible for CENVAT Credit, maintaining a revenue-neutral situation. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced specific case laws, such as Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd and Kinetic Engn. Ltd, to support the conclusion that the issue was well-settled in law. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the orders of the lower authorities. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the applicability of CENVAT Credit rules and notifications concerning common inputs used in manufacturing goods on a job work basis. By analyzing the provisions of relevant laws and case laws, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the lower authorities and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of understanding the specific provisions and implications of notifications and rules in determining the eligibility for CENVAT Credit in different manufacturing scenarios.
|
