9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and the principal manufacturer thereafter cleared the finished goods on payment of duty. The point of dispute is as to whether in such a situation, the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit of duty on LDO, Furnace Oil and RFO. The Asstt. Commissioner holding that they would not be eligible for Cenvat credit of duty on LDO, Furnace Oil and RFO, confirmed Cenvat credit demand alongwith interest and imposed the penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order-in-appeal upheld the Asstt. Commissioner’s order. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Held that- Just because the appellant in addition to manufacture of rough forgings on job work basis, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order-in-original dated 10-1-07 confirmed Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 1,93,040/- alongwith interest and imposed the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order-in-appeal upheld the Asstt. Commissioner's order. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 2. Heard both sides. 2.1 Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that this very issue has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 (Tri.-LB) wherein it was held that job worker, who received goods from the manufacturer under Rule 57E of erstwhile Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2 Shri Sansar Chand, ld. DR, pleaded that the ratio of the judgment cited by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is not applicable, as this is a case where the appellant cannot be said to be a job worker as they also manufactured goods of, their own, while job worker is that who manufactures purely on job work basis; that in such situation, the provisions of Rule 6(2), become applicable and in respect of rough steel forgings cleared at nil rate of duty, the appellant should have reversed the proportionate and that all the judgments cited by the appellant are for the period prior to issue of Notification No. 27/05-C.E. dated 6-5-05 by which the exclusion of fuel inputs from the operation of Rule 6(2) had been removed and that if cenvated f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal is based on the Larger Bench decision. I also find that the correctness of the Larger Bench's judgment in the case of Sterlite Inds. (I) Ltd. has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in respect of Appeal No. 76/08 [2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (Bom.)] filed by the Revenue. Just because the appellant in addition to manufacture of rough forgings on job work basis, also manufactured the rough forging for themselves, they do not cease to the job worker and therefore, I hold that the ratio of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Sterlite Inds.(I) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to this case. In view of this, the impugned order is not correct and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(Order dictated in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
