9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the removal of goods envisaged is a removal for good just like the removal of an excisable final product. A case of removal of input or capital goods to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning or any other purpose is governed by Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. If the job-worked goods are not received back in the factory of the manufacturer of final product within such period, the manufacturer of final product shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the input or capital goods, by debiting the amount in the CENVAT account or otherwise. Rule 4(5)(a) allows CENVAT credit on the input to be taken by the manufacturer of final product before removal of the input to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared to the job worker; that they ought to have reversed the credit; that when this was pointed out to them, they raised objections and proposed to contest on the issue. As per the Audit Note, the credit was recoverable with interest by the Range Officer. The show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of the credit in question under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, recovery of interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. These proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment, as early as in December, 2005. However, the show-cause notice for recovery of the credit came to be issued only in April, 2008, far beyond the normal period of limitation from the date of knowledge. In this manner, the learned counsel has contested the demand of duty on the ground of limitation. In this context also, the learned counsel has relied on case law viz. P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 232 (Tri.-Bang.). 5. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) has reiterated the findings of the original and appellate authorities and has also adverted to Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He submits that the appellant had virtually availed double benefit by not reversing CENVAT credit on the tube ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or capital goods, by debiting the amount in the CENVAT account or otherwise. Rule 4(5)(a) allows CENVAT credit on the input to be taken by the manufacturer of final product before removal of the input to the job worker. It was this right which was exercised by the present appellant and the same is not assailable (in the manner the department chose to do). 7. The Supreme Court s judgment in International Auto case (supra) apparently covers a similar set of facts and holds that the manufacturer of final product is entitled not only to avail credit on the input supplied to their job worker but also to take credit of the duty paid on the intermediate product by the job worker. In a similar case, the jurisdictional High Court followed the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
