9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 3893 of 2012 (SM) - Final Order No. 58530/2017 - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - Hon ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Arvind Arora, Advocate for the Appellant Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per. Ashok Jindal Cenvat credit on service availed by the appellant has been denied on the premise that the appellant is a job worker and working under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/03/1986 as they are not required to pay duty on the goods manufactured by them on job work basis, therefore, in terms of Rule 6 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit. 2. Heard the parties considered the submission. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on these goods by the supplier of raw-material and show cause notice issued ignoring this position merits to be set aside. 6.6 The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana has already in an another case of the Noticees relating to earlier periods allowed their appeals vide Order in Appeal No. 350- 351/CE/Appl/Ldh/04 dated 19-4-2004 (copy enclosed) and set aside the orders-in-original demanding reversal of credit. The same view is also taken in the case of Modi Sales, Ludhiana vide Orderin- appeal No. 139/CE/CHD/06 dated 27-2-06. In the case of Modi Sales, their earlier order-in-original on the same issue has already been accepted by the department as mentioned in this order-in- appeal. In addition to this, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from whole of the duty or is chargeable to nil 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 57-C 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 appellants from claiming benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986. As stated above, the notification itself clarifies that the inputs can be used within the factory of product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been invoked in the present case. The said judgment is, thus, distinguishable . 4. As the Hon ble High Court has already held that the goods which are manufactured by the appellant are not exempted goods, therefore, appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit. It is admitted fact that the goods manufactured by the appellant are not exempted goods, but being a job worker, the appellant is not required to pay duty therefore it cannot be said the goods manufactured by the appellant are exempted goods. Accordingly, Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant in terms of Rule 6 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. In these terms and above analysis, I hold appellant has correctly availed the Cenvat credit, therefore, the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
