9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appropriate duty while returning the goods to the appellant on 10.06.2004 - An assessee who defaulted payment of duty by violating Rule 8 has to be held to have not paid duty on the goods - when the duty-paid goods were received from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, it was open to the appellant to take CENVAT credit thereof, a course allowed by the law - If the appellant did not opt to enjoy that benefit, the Revenue cannot be prejudiced - Decided against Revenue. Denial of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 – Inputs procured used in job-work which is exempted final product - Benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE - Held that:- Any job-worked goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices No. 13 dated 18.05.2004 and No. 14 dated 21.05.2004 and cleared to Dr. Reddys Laboratories; b) Rs. 9,600/- being the amount of CENVAT credit denied to the appellant (job-worker) in respect of certain inputs procured by them on payment of duty and used in job-works undertaken for various principal manufacturers; c) Rs. 53,277/- being the total amount of CENVAT credit denied to the appellant in respect of certain services which were claimed by them to be input services used for export of final products but not recognized so by the adjudicating authority having regard to the definition of input service given under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004; d) Interest on the above amounts; e) Penalties. Aggrieved by the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this context, the learned counsel has claimed support from CBEC s Circular No. 267144/2009-CX 8 dated 25.11.2009. The learned counsel has also pleaded time-bar against the above demand by pointing out that the demand is beyond the normal period and the same cannot be enforced as the show-cause notice did not invoke the extended period. In this connection, the learned counsel has also referred to Collector Vs. H.M.M Ltd. [1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C)]. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) has contested this claim by submitting that, as violation of Rule 8 is indisputable, this is a case of non-payment of duty by the appellant on the bulk drugs and therefore they cannot escape their liability to pay the duty. The plea of time-bar is also oppos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Undisputedly, the goods returned by Dr. Reddy s Laboratories were received in the appellants factory after 06.06.2004, the due date for the appellant to have paid duty thereon. On such facts, the Boards clarification is of no aid to the appellant. One has, therefore, to fallback upon the undisputed violation of Rule 8 of the CER 2002. An assessee who defaulted payment of duty by violating Rule 8 has to be held to have not paid duty on the goods. It was the duty not paid that was demanded by the department by invoking the larger period of limitation. It is not the case of the appellant that their default was disclosed to the department soon after 06.06.2004 or later. Even after receipt of the goods returned by Dr. Reddy s Laboratories, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the appellant submits that the credit was denied on the sole ground that the job-worked goods were cleared without payment of duty. In other words, the demand is in terms of Rule 6 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) has not been able to rebut this factual position. The question, therefore, arises as to whether Rule 6(1) of the CCR 2004 could have been invoked to deny the above credit to the appellant on the ground that the inputs were used in the manufacture of exempted final products. This issue has got to be decided in favour of the appellant inasmuch as it has been consistently held by this Tribunal that any job-worked goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CCR 2004. I have heard the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) also who has not cited any rival case law on the point. The question is whether the courier service availed by the appellant in this case can be accepted as an input service used for export of final products. The decisions cited by the learned counsel fortify their claim. Further this Tribunal has consistently held that, where the final products are exported, the port of export is the place of removal . In this view of the matter also, the courier service would qualify to be input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004 as it was, admittedly, used for transportation of the goods from the factory to the port of export. Needless to say that the above credit is admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
