9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provision of Rule 57C. Recovery of CENVAT credit not sustained - appeal allowed - decided against Revenue. - E/1308, 1322/09 & E/1684, 1757 & 1758/11 - A/87259-87263/16/SMB - Dated:- 25-4-2016 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri SV Nair, Asst. Comm. (AR) for appellant Shri Narayanan, Advocate for respondent ORDER The appellant, M/s. Bharat Forge Ltd., installed a machine in their plant for doing job-work for their clients. For doing such job work they were manufacturing dies in their premises and using the same captively. They were also using certain inputs and capital goods while doing the job work for others. The said m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these goods the duty is just deferred and liability is fixed on the principal manufacturer. He argued that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai as reported in 2009 (244) ELTA89. 3. The learned AR for the Revenue argued that the Notification is very clear and no credit is admissible when inputs are used for the manufacture of exempted goods and when the capital goods are used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goods. He argued that the goods in this case were fully exempted and therefore, they were hit by the mischief of Rule 6 (1) 6 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. I have gone through the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of duty, credit would still be allowed so long as duty is paid on the final product. 9. In cases of manufacturers like the Appellants the final product is the tractor. The intermediate product would be parts which are manufactured for being used in the tractor. In such a case the parts would not be the final product. Thus Rule 57C would have no application. The mere fact that the parts are cleared from one factory of the Appellants to another factory of the Appellants would not disentitle the Appellant from claiming benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2nd April, 1986. As stated above, the Notification itself clarifies that the inputs can be used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
