2016 (8) TMI 698 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - job work - received iron ore on behalf of its sister unit, converted the same into concentrate and returned the same to its sister unit without payment of duty - no evidence that appellant was operating under job work procedure and as the concentrate was cleared at nil rate of duty - Held that - the appellant has been able to demonstrate by citing letter written to Superintendent of Central Excise, Jagdalpur on 07.09.2007 intimating the Range officer that it would be operating under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and challans for the movement of goods to and from the appellant that it was essentially working as a job worker entitled to the benefit of Notification No.214/86-CE. In such a situation, judgement in the case of JBF Industries Vs. CCES&T, Vapi 2014 (2) TMI 769 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD covers the issue in favour of the appellant as in that judgement it was held that input services used in the manufacture of job worked goods exempted under Notification No.214/86-CE is admissible. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of Cenvat credit on input services
- Applicability of job work procedure
- Admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs used for goods returned without payment of duty
- Benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE, dated 25.03.1986
- Procedure followed by the appellant as a job worker
- Consequence of not following prescribed job worker procedure
- Whether concentrate cleared by the appellant would be chargeable to duty

Analysis:
The appellate tribunal heard an appeal against an Order-in-Original disallowing Cenvat credit on input services, ordering recovery, imposing interest, and a mandatory penalty. The appellant received iron ore, converted it into concentrate for its sister unit, and returned it without duty payment. The primary issue was whether the appellant operated under job work procedure. The appellant argued it followed job work rules, citing a letter to the Central Excise Superintendent and challans as evidence. Legal precedents were referenced to support the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit on inputs used for duty-free goods returned to the principal manufacturer.

The Departmental Representative contended there was no evidence of the appellant following job worker procedure, questioning the applicability of legal judgments cited by the appellant. The tribunal considered both sides' arguments and found the appellant demonstrated compliance with job work rules, making them eligible for Cenvat credit under Notification No. 214/86-CE. Legal precedents supported the appellant's position, emphasizing the admissibility of input services used in job worked goods exempted under the notification.

Regarding the Departmental Representative's argument on the appellant's failure to follow prescribed job worker procedure, the tribunal highlighted the potential duty liability if the concentrate was deemed dutiable. However, the tribunal clarified that the duty demand issue was not part of the current appeal. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order disallowing the Cenvat credit. The judgment emphasized the appellant's compliance with job work rules and the admissibility of Cenvat credit under the relevant notification.