9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 696 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - job-work - respondents have taken the credit of same duty twice - N/N. 214/86-CE - Held that - the issue whether the principal manufacturer can taken Cenvat Credit on the inputs contained in the goods received from the Job workers on which duty has been paid, is no longer res integra, and decided in the case of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus CCE & ST. - Meerut-I 2014 (3) TMI 203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that The intermediate products made out of inputs are different from inputs and just because the Appellant have availed Cenvat Credit in respect of the inputs, the Cenvat Credit of duty, if any paid on the intermediate products by the job-workers, cannot be denied to the principal manufactures - credit remains allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Whether the appellant wrongly took Cenvat Credit on Polycarbonate Sheets? - Whether the job worker should have availed exemption benefit under Notification No. 214/86-CE? - Whether the appellant took double benefit of Cenvat Credit on inputs? - Whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat Credit on the duty paid by job workers? - Whether the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable? Analysis: 1. The case involves the appellant, a manufacturer of Railway parts, who took Cenvat Credit of Central Excise Duty on Polycarbonate Sheets, a raw material for their products, procured from a registered dealer. The inputs were sent to a job worker, who cleared Toughened Glass back to the appellant, including the duty paid on the value of the goods. The Revenue alleged that the appellant wrongly took Cenvat Credit on the duty paid by the job worker, leading to a show cause notice for duty recovery and penalty. 2. The Revenue contended that the appellant took double benefit of Cenvat Credit on the inputs, referencing judgments like International Auto Ltd. v. CCE. The appellant argued that there was no revenue loss as duty was paid separately both times. They cited cases like M/s Thermax Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara-I to support their position that the job worker was not required to avail full duty exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and held that the appellant did not avail dual benefit as the duty was paid on inputs at both stages. Referring to M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. CCE & St, Meerut-I, the Tribunal clarified that the appellant was eligible for Cenvat Credit on duty paid by job workers on intermediate products. The Tribunal emphasized that the Cenvat Credit Rules did not mandate job workers to avail full duty exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE. 4. Following previous judgments like Aries Dyechem Industries v. CCE, Ahmedabad, the Tribunal concluded that denying Cenvat Credit on duty paid by job workers would be incorrect. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had taken credit of actual duty paid to the government and that there was no dual benefit involved. The legal position being clear, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.
|
