2020 (10) TMI 756 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs procured by themselves and used in the manufacture of job work goods and cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 - credit denied on the ground that goods manufactured on job work basis, wherein the subject inputs were used, have been cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE, without payment of excise duty - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res-integra as in various judgments including the judgments in the appellant s own case, BANCO ALUMINIUM LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T., VADODARA-I 2019 (7) TMI 1691 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD this Tribunal has held that inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods, under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, particularly by virtue of specific provision under Rule 3(1), in the appellant s own case, the Tribunal held that even though the job work goods are exempted under notification 214/86-CE, the credit is allowed. CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellants are entitled to Cenvat credit for inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Cenvat credit
The main issue in this case was whether the appellants are entitled to Cenvat credit for inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. The lower authorities had denied the credit on the grounds that the goods were cleared without payment of excise duty. The appellant argued that this issue had been settled in their favor in previous Tribunal orders and cited relevant case laws to support their claim. The Revenue, however, reiterated the findings of the impugned order and relied on various judgments to oppose the appellant's claim.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows credit for inputs used in the manufacture of goods under exemption notification 214/86-CE. The Tribunal highlighted the specific provision under Rule 3(1) that permits the credit for inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods, even if those goods are exempted under the said notification. The Tribunal referred to its previous judgment in the appellant's own case and emphasized that the credit is allowed as per the rule, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
Based on the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the precedents set by previous Tribunal orders, including the appellant's own case, the Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to Cenvat credit for inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, granting the appellants the Cenvat credit they sought.