9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been cleared on payment of duty. In that circumstance, it cannot be said that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturer of exempted goods - In fact the said goods are dutiable. In that circumstance, also the credit cannot be denied to the appellant. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/01364/2012 - Final Order No. 60907/2017 - Dated:- 25-4-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri B. L. Narsimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R. K. Sharma, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay application are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 The appellant are manufactures of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant being the job worker is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on capital goods used in the manufacture of excisable goods which are ultimately used by the principal manufacturer in the manufacture of dutiable final products to prevent cascading effect. To support this, he relied on the following decisions: (a) Escorts Ltd vs. CCE-2004 (171) ELT 145 (SC) (b) Samsung India Electronics Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida-2006 (205) ELT 884 (Tri.Del.) which has been affirmed by the Hon ble High Court reported as 2014 (309) ELT 593 (All) (c) Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs. CCE-2005 (191) ELT 1099 (T) which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court as reported in 2007 (218) ELT 177 (Kar.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel Limited vs. CCE, Raipur-2016 (341) ELT 442 (Tri.-del.). 6. It is his further contention that the appellant has taken the credit after 2006 on the capital goods and they have cleared the goods on payment of duty, in that circumstance, the credit cannot be denied to them. 7. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 9. In this case, the sole issue is that the capital goods in question has been exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods as during the material period, the appellant was engaged in the production of goods on job work basis under Notification No.214/86-CE date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is concerned, it is observed that the appellate authorities in all these case laws have consistently held that the Cenvat credit on the input or capital goods used for job work undertaken as per the provisions of notification no.214/86-Ce cannot be denied since such job work goods are used by the Principal manufacturer as per the undertaking given as required under Notification No.214/86-Central Excise Thus, it is observed that as far as the conditions of this notification are complied with by the job worker and the principal manufacturer, the Cenvat credit on the inputs or capital goods is admissible to the job worker. 12. The adjudicating authority has solely denied the credit to the appellants on the ground that the principal man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... worker and therefore, would not be entitled for exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 and that would make the judgments cited by the ld. advocate unhelpful to the appellant, we would like to state that if the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative is upheld, the consequence would be that the concentrate cleared by the appellant would be chargeable to duty because the CCE, Raipur vide adjudication order dated 6-11-2007 (referred to earlier) has held that the activity of converting ore into concentrate amounts to manufacture. Once the concentrate is held to be dutiable, the question of disallowing input service credit would simply not arise even if the concentrate was cleared without payment of duty; (thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
