9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 781 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - 10% of value of job work goods - Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - non-maintenance of separate account for dutiable as well as exempted goods - Held that - it is an admitted fact that the job work goods manufactured by the respondent are dutiable goods. The respondent is manufacturing only and only dutiable goods, therefore, the question of invoking the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not arise at all. - Decided against the Revenue
Issues:
Appeal against the order regarding Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applicability. Analysis: The appellant, Revenue, challenged an order where the Commissioner held that Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not applicable. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing steel items and job work, was alleged to have not maintained separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods, leading to a demand for payment of 10% of the value of job work goods. The Commissioner set aside the demand, prompting the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue argued that the respondent, manufacturing goods and undertaking job work, should pay 10% of the value of job work goods as per Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Tribunal found that the job work goods were dutiable, and since the respondent only manufactured dutiable goods, Rule 6(3) did not apply. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's findings, referencing a previous Tribunal decision and clarifying that goods under the specific notification were not exempted but required duty payment by the principal manufacturer. As the respondent did not appear, the Tribunal proceeded with the case. After careful consideration, it was concluded that the impugned proceedings were unwarranted as the respondent only manufactured dutiable goods, making Rule 6(3) inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the specific notification's requirements and previous Tribunal decisions. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's order.
|
