9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or intended purpose, had been illicitly diverted. On perusal of Rule 4(6), we are of the prima facie view, that for availment of the facility to clear the finished goods from the job worker’s premises, it is not necessary that the inputs must be sent by the manufacturer from his factory - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted. - E/1363/2012 - Stay Order No. 1542/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 4-9-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri R.K. Hasija, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Devender Singh, JCDR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant manufacture insecticides. They took Cenvat credit of excise duty on inputs and capital goods in relation to manufacture of final products. The appellant get ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ja, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the job worker was operating under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., that the appellant does not dispute that the appellant had sent the inputs directly to the job workers for processing and thereafter the finished goods instead of being brought back to the factory, had been cleared from the job worker s premises and in this regard the necessary permission had been granted by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Rule 4(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that the conditions subject to which this permission had been granted, had been followed, that Rule 3(1) permits availment of credit by a manufacturer even if the inputs have been got processed by the manufacturer through j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises and hence this is not fit case for waiver of requirement of pre-deposit. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. It is not disputed that the inputs, in question, were directly sent by the appellant to the job worker without first receiving the same in their factory. Rule 3(1) permits availment of credit by a manufacturer even if inputs, in respect of which credit had been availed, had been sent to the job worker for processing. In this case, we find there is no allegation of the department that the inputs received by the job worker, instead of being used for intended purpose, had been illicitly diverted. On perusal of Rule 4(6), we are of the prima facie view, that for availment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
