9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded recovery of interest on the said amount apart from imposing equivalent amount of penalty. The reason for denial of CENVAT credit and penal liability is that the appellant cleared moulds, dies, etc. on which CENVAT credit has been taken, to vendors who manufactured certain motor vehicle parts for the appellant under Rule 4(5)(a) procedure and the said rule at the relevant period of time did not permit clearance of moulds/dies to vendors who is not a job-worker. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the goods were in fact cleared under Rule 4(5)(b) procedure and the mentioning of rule 4(5)(a) in the challans is a mistake. Under Rule 4(5)(b) procedure moulds and dies coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial or semi-finished goods supplied to the job worker, so as to complete a part or whole of the process resulting in the manufacture or finishing of an article or any operation which is essential for aforesaid process and the expression "job worker" shall be construed accordingly." 5. Therefore, to be a 'job-worker', he should receive the materials from the principal manufacturer and undertake work on those materials. In the present case, the vendor is not a 'job-worker' in the sense that the appellant does not supply any raw materials and the vendor procures the raw materials himself and manufactures the goods and for such manufacture, the appellant has sent the moulds and dies. He also submits that there is no finding in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been denied the benefit of CENVAT Credit. In such a situation, the only infraction the appellant could be attributed is only procedural infraction which only merits imposition of penalty rather than denial of credit, as provided for in the law. Since this issue has not been examined by the adjudicating authority, we are of the view that the matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration. The appellant is also entitled to lead evidence in support of their contention that they have also been using these moulds and dies in their own factory for the manufacture of excisable goods. The adjudicating authority shall consider all the evidences and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 7. Thus, the appeal is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
