9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the duty liability has been discharged by the supplier of the raw material and not by the job worker or processor of the goods and the demand on job worker is unsustainable. Assessee received the MMF for processing and after processing sent to the Principal, which is used in the manufacture of final product. In the present case, the fermenters/columns supplied by the Appellant were admittedly not used in the manufacture of final product viz. pharmaceuticals or chemicals. - decided against Assessee. - Appeal No.E/260/2012 - Order No. A/11405/2015 - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Appellant: Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that this issue is settled by the Tribunal in various decisions as under:- i) Vandana Dyeing Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai-II 2014 (307) ELT 528 (Tri-Mum.) ii) Mukesh Industries Ltd Vs CCE Ahmedabad 2009 (238) ELT 203 (Tri-Ahmd) ii) M.Tex D.K. Processors (P) Ltd Vs CCE Jaipur 2001 (136) ELT 73 (Tri-Del), upheld by HSC as reported in 2002 (146) ELT A 309. 3. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Rule 4(5)(a) particularly provides that the goods will be used in the manufacture of final product. In the present case, the goods were not used in the manufacture of final product by the principal. Hence, they are not eligible for the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain when the inputs or capital goods are received back in his factory or in the premises of the provider of output service. 5. On a plain reading of Rule 4(5)(a) of the said Rules, it is clear that the CENVAT Credit shall be allowed even if inputs or capital goods sent to job worker for further processing, testing, repair etc. for the manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture of final product, and it is established from the records that the goods are received back in the factory within the stipulated period. So, Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules permitted the manufacturer to send the inputs or capital goods to the job workers without reversal of CENVAT Credit. 6. The main contention of the learned Advocate is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability has been discharged by the supplier of the raw material and not by the job worker or processor of the goods and the demand on job worker is unsustainable. The other case laws as cited by the learned Advocate are similar in nature. In my view, in these cases, the Assessee received the MMF for processing and after processing sent to the Principal, which is used in the manufacture of final product. In the present case, the fermenters/columns supplied by the Appellant were admittedly not used in the manufacture of final product viz. pharmaceuticals or chemicals. So, none of the case laws would be applicable in the present case. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Appellant. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
