9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o record is that the principal manufacturer who assigned the job work to the appellant was an EOU. Part of the goods manufactured by the appellant were processed and exported by that EOU. The rest of the goods were domestically cleared making payment of duty. Honble High Court of Madras in the case cited (2015 (9) TMI 119 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) has held that clearance of the goods by a job worker if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the capital goods which were acquired domestically did not enjoy capital goods credit at the time of acquisition since no duty was paid as the appellant was an EOU. When the appellant was de-bonded to forgo the EOU status, appellant paid appropriate duty on the capital goods so de-bonded. The excise duty so paid on the de-bonding of capital goods was claimed as capital goods credit. The capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hennai Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (322) ELT 697 (Mad.). Therefore, denial of capital goods credit is contrary to law. 2. Revenue on the other hand says that the appellant only was engaged in the manufacture as a job worker it had not paid any duty for which it is not entitled to enjoy any capital goods credit since the goods were covered under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 9.7.2004 as exempted g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat clearance of the goods by a job worker if exempt from duty that does not disentitle the job worker to the CENVAT credit. Appellant says that it had not made clearance under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 9.7.2004 but made clearances to an EOU. 5. The capital goods of the appellant were used to manufacture dutiable intermediary for the EOU which suffered duty partly on the value addition the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
