9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT Credit - goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days of their being sent to a job worker or not - Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR - HELD THAT:- A close reading of Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR makes it clear that a manufacturer can avail CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to the job worker for further processing, test, repair, reconditioning or any other purpose; and the goods are received back in the factory within 180 days from the job worker. It is very clear that the above rule does not contemplate payment of duty by the job worker. The duty liability is squarely on the shoulders of the raw material supplier. Therefore, the demand of duty for the reason that raw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 15-4-2005, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Tirupathi. 2. The appellants manufacture Stable Bleaching Powder, an excisable commodity. They availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. dated 1-3-2003. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants on two counts. Firstly, the appellants received raw material from M/s. Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. who are the owners of the brand name Anisha . The appellants undertook the manufacture of Stable Bleaching Powder under the brand name Anisha out of the raw material supplied by M/s. Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. The finished products were sent to M/s. Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. who cleared the goods without payment of duty. The Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job work manufactured by a manufacturer and return of the same within the stipulated time from the job worker and its clearances thereafter on payment of applicable duty. As per the above rules, the liability of paying the duty is on the supplier and not on the job worker. The following case laws were relied on :- (a) M. Tex D. K. Processors Pvt Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 affirmed by S. C. as reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. A309. (b) CCE, Jaipur-II v. Tirupati Fabrics Industries Ltd. [2001 (46) RLT 8] (c) Eveready Inds. Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (186) E.L.T. 570] Therefore the demand of ₹ 16,02,333/- is not tenable. (ii) The goods manufactured by them on job work basis are branded goods. The raw mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other document produced by the assessee taking the CENVAT credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received back within one hundred eighty days, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributed to the inputs or capital goods by debiting the CENVAT credit or otherwise, but the manufacturer can take the CENVAT credit again when the inputs or capital goods are received back in his factory. A close reading of the above rulings makes it clear that a manufacturer can avail CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to the job worker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
