9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit these inputs were sent to their job worker for further processing to be received back in terms of rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and notification no. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. The job worker on receipt of these inputs undertakes further processing by adding his own inputs on which duty has been paid, but job worker did not avail credit on own inputs as well as transferred inputs from the appellant. After processing the goods the same are returned to the appellant who after the further processing manufactures the finished goods and clear the same on payment of duty. The job worker falls under Central Excise Commissionerate, Noida. The jurisdictional officer raised certain dispute regarding non payment of duty by the job wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... worker is availing exemption under notification no. 214/86 from April 2004 onwards. It is because of the proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers at the job workers end, the job worker was ordered and compelled to pay the duty on the processed goods returned back to the appellants in terms of an approved procedure. 3. Since such payment of duty has been ordered to be made on the processed goods, the job worker paid the said duty after arriving at a value in terms of the order of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ujjagar Paints-1989 (38) ELT 535 (SC). It is not correct for the Revenue to allege that they have taken credit twice on the same inputs. The credit taken for the first time was on the purchased inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings in the impugned order and stated that when the jurisdictional authority at the job workers end held that job worker is not eligible for concession under notification 214/86-CE, the appellant could not continue to avail the credit on inputs as such and also credit on processed goods received from job workers. 6. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 7. The short point for decision as to whether or not the appellants are right in availing the credit on the inputs before they were cleared to the job workers and again the credit on the processed goods (which contains these duty paid inputs) again on receipt from the job worker. We find that these duty paid inputs after availing credit were cleared in terms of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucts] or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the manufacturer or provider of output service taking the Cenvat Credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eight days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received back within one hundred eight days, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat Credit attributable to the inputs and he can take the Cenvat Credit again when the inputs or capital goods are received back in his factory or in the premises of the provider of output service". 7. Thus on perusal of the above Rule, it is clear that a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made out of input supplied by Appellant upon receiving the same from the job workers. Logically, the ground on which the Cenvat Credit is sought to be denied is totally incorrect. There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty Exemption under Notification No.214/86-CE. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job-workers. If the job worker decides to pay the duty on the intermediate products manufactured by him on job work basis for the principal manufacturer, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ujagar Prints Vs. Union of India, reported in 1989(3) ELT-439 (SC), they would be required to pay duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uto Case apparently covers a similar set of facts and hold that the manufacturer of final product is entitled not only to avail credit on the input supplied to their job worker but also to take credit of the duty paid on the intermediate product by the job worker. In a similar case, the jurisdictional High Court followed the Apex Courts decision and held an identical issue against the Revenue vide Venlon Polyster Film Case. In the result, the appellant succeeds on merits. Though, prima facie, they have a case on limitation as well, I do not find it necessary to enter into a discussion." 10. Considering the above settled position of law we find no merit in the impugned order and accordingly set aside the same. The appeal is allowed. [Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
