9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Issue stands settled in view of ordered passed by this bench in the case of JBF - Industries vs. C.C.E. & S.T., VAPI (2014 (2) TMI 769 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), after relying upon larger bench judgment in the case of sterlite Industries Ltd. vs. cmmr. [2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] Paras 6.1 and 6.3 of ordered dated 11.02.2014 passed by this bench in the case of JBF vs. C.C.E. & S.T, VAPI are relevant - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : ST/13758/2014-SM - ORDER No. A/11053/2015 - Dated:- 20-7-2015 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For Appellant : S.R. Dixit, Advocate For Respondent : Shri J. Nagori, Authorised Representative Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. VAD-EXCUS- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed dated 11.02.2014 passed by this bench in the case of JBF vs. C.C.E. S.T, VAPI (Supra) are relevant and are reproduced blow- 6.1 The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether the Cenvat credit of input services taken by the appellant and used by them in the manufacture of job-worked goods (exempt under Notification No. 214/86-C.E.) is admissible to the appellant or not in view of the provisions contained in Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The demand has been confirmed against the appellant on the grounds that Service Tax credit proportionate to the services used in the manufacture of exempted goods under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25.03.1986, is not admissible. From the case laws relied upon by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at nil rate of duty is not admissible if the provisions of Rule 57CC ibid are not followed. Following the ratio of Bajaj Tempo Case [1994 (69) E.L.T. 122], the Tribunal held in this case that the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs procured on their own account used in the manufacture of job-worked goods exempted under Notification Number 214/86-C.E. This decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Larger Bench decision in the matter of Sterlite Industries (I) Limited vs. C.C.E., Pune [2005(68) RLT 25 (CESTAT-LB) = 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 (Tribunal-LB)]. Departmental appeal filed against this order of the Larger Bench has been rejected by the Hon ble Bombay High Court as reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. (A89) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service viz. production or processing of raw materials amounting to manufacture. In this context we find that the job work activity of the appellant is amounting to manufacture and is not one of providing any service . The appellant factory cannot be both a manufacturer and a service provider at the same time in relation to a particular activity. It is settled proposition in central Excise matters that a job worker is a manufacturer and hence the appellant factory cannot be treated as a service provider rendering exempted/non-taxable service for the manufacturing activity. Therefore, there is no force in the Revenue s contention that the appellant had rendered exempted/non-taxable service to its sister concern located at Athola. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
