9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar issue decided in the case of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus CCE & ST. - Meerut-I [2014 (3) TMI 203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty Exemption under N/N. 214/86-CE. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job-workers - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. E/56064-56065/2013-[DB] - Final Order No. 53153-53154/2017 - Dated:- 2-5-2017 - Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Mr. Nand Kishor Anshul Verma (Advocates) for the Appellant Mr. H.C. Saini, DR f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have followed the provisions of either Rule 16A of Central Excise Rules, 2002 or Notification No. 214 of 86-CE, for such manufacture and clearance of intermediate goods. Proceedings were initiated against the main appellant as well as the second appellant, who is a job worker in this case, to demand and recover cenvat credit of ₹ 56,66,702 and also to impose penalties under various provisions of the Act under the Rules. Upon adjudication of the case original authority disallowed the said credit and imposed equal amount of penalty on the main appellant and a penalty of ₹ 5,50,000/- on the second appellant (job worker) under Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 for failure to follow the correct procedure in terms of Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the appellant. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The proceedings against the appellants are for denying the credit of duty paid on finished forgings received by them from the job worker on payment of duty. We note that the main ground of denial is there is a double benefit to the appellant. One is at the rough forgings stage and second at the stage of machined forgings. Further Revenue felt that the job worker should have followed the procedure under Notification 214 of 86-CE and availed exemption. We find both the reasons are not sustainable. Admittedly, the appellants paid central excise duty, both at the stage of procuring rough forgings and also at the time of receiving b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C.), they would be required to pay duty on the cost of input plus job charges including the cost of their own inputs used in manufacture. This is what the job workers have done in the present case. Moreover when the inputs, in question, have suffered twice, first in the hand of input manufacturers from whom the Appellant had procured the inputs and second time in the hand of job workers who at the time of clearance of intermediate products made out of the inputs paid duty on value which included the cost of the inputs, the credit of the duty paid on the intermediate product cannot be denied when such intermediate were made out of those inputs, even if the Appellant had earlier taken the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs while receiving th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
