9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1360 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - Job work - Modvat / CENVAT Credit - exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 8/99-CE dated 28.2.1999 and Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 01.3.2000 - Held that - Appellant supplied components to job workers under Rule 57S(7) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is seen that the job workers, after processing (alignment etc.) supplied capital goods namely, Reactor Vessel, Sigma Mixer Machine and Mixer Muller. The Tribunal accepted that the job worker is eligible to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 214/86-CE. There is no dispute that these capital goods were used in the manufacture of the final product at the appellant s factory and cleared on payment of duty. - No reason to deny the modvat credit to the appellant. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Change of cause title application. 2. Denial of modvat credit on capital goods. 3. Allegation of fraudulent practices. 4. Interpretation of Notification No. 8/2000-CE. 5. Applicability of Notification No. 214/86-CE. 6. Eligibility for CENVAT credit. 7. Decision based on precedent. Change of Cause Title Application: The applicant filed for a change of cause title due to a company name change from 'M/s. Micro Inks Limited' to 'M/s. Micro Inks Private Limited'. The registry was directed to amend the cause title accordingly, and the application was allowed. Denial of Modvat Credit on Capital Goods: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing pigments and chemicals, availed CENVAT/modvat credit on capital goods supplied to job workers. A show cause notice was issued alleging denial of modvat credit due to job workers clearing goods under full exemption notifications. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Allegation of Fraudulent Practices: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant fraudulently sent materials to job workers to conceal the value of components. Proceedings were initiated against job workers to deny benefits under specific notifications. The Tribunal's previous decision in a similar case was cited to support the appellant's position. Interpretation of Notification No. 8/2000-CE: Condition (iii) of Para 2 of Notification No. 8/2000-CE was crucial in the case, stipulating that manufacturers availing the notification should not avail cenvat credit. This condition played a significant role in the denial of modvat credit to the appellant. Applicability of Notification No. 214/86-CE: The Tribunal referred to a precedent (M/s. Mech Form case) where it was held that job workers were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE. This decision influenced the outcome of the current case regarding the appellant's eligibility for modvat credit. Eligibility for CENVAT Credit: The appellant supplied components to job workers under specific rules and received capital goods in return. The Tribunal found that the job worker was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE, leading to the conclusion that the modvat credit should not be denied to the appellant. Decision Based on Precedent: The Tribunal's decision was based on the settled issue from the M/s. Mech Form case, where similar circumstances were considered, and the benefit of specific notifications was extended to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal by the appellant was allowed. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the various issues addressed, including the change of cause title application, denial of modvat credit, fraudulent practices, interpretation of relevant notifications, applicability of specific notifications, eligibility for CENVAT credit, and the impact of precedent on the final decision.
|
