9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority shall ensure the correct amount of re-credit to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand only for a limited purpose i.e. verification of amount - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods on job work basis in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25/3/1986 she submits that issued has already been decided by the then Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No. RJB/M/III/307/2003 dated 22/8/2003 and same was upheld by this Tribunal, therefore rejection of claim is absolutely wrong and illegal. She also submits that against Order-in-Appeal dated 14.7.2003 in the appeal of the Revenue there was no challenge to the issue of unjust enrichment which has been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 14/7/2003 wherein Commissioner (Appeals) had given categorical finding that principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in view of the proviso (c) of subsection (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 14.7.2003 wherein he passed following order: I have carefully looked into the facts and recores of the case in the light of submissions made in appeal and at the time of hearing. Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, reads as under: The CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of [input used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, or input service used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods and their clearance upto the place of removal or for provision of exempted services except], in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2). Rule 6(2) reads that where a manufacturer or provider of output service avails of CENVAT credit in respect of any inputs or input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is not applicable in view of the proviso (c) to sub-section 2 of Section11B of the Central Excise Act which carves out an exception in respect of cases involving credit of duty. The Apex Court judgment in respect of M/s. Solar Pesticides P. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2000 (116) ELT 401 SC had not dealt with the question of Section 11B (2) C and therefore cannot be made applicable to this case. Rather I rely upon Tribunal's latest judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad M.s. Durasyntex Ltd. as reported in 2003 (154) ELT 422 TRB. Having regard to the discussion above, I set aside the Order-in-Original and admit the appeal. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Revenue before the CESTAT in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sation in the manufacturer of final product to be cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer could be availed by the job worker unaffected by the provisions of Rule 57C. The said Rule had injuncted a manufacturer of final product from taking Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty. The Larger Bench decision proceeded on the premise that Rule 57C was not applicable to a job worker who claimed Modvat credit on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the job-worked goods. In other words, the job-worked goods cleared by the job worker to the principal manufacturer were not recognised to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
