9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 214/86-CE is only to facilitate movement of capital goods to the job worker for manufacture of intermediate / final products - the order of recovery of cenvat credit amount ₹ 93,04,021/- along with interest thereon. Penalty - Held that: - the entire manner of job work got done by the appellant was within the knowledge of the department - there is also no allegation that the goods, though received directly at the job worker's end, were not used for the purpose they were intended, or for that matter, that they were not returned back to the appellant etc. - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - E/192/2009 - 43003/2017 - Dated:- 10-11-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities for manufacture of copper anode from Tuticorin to their Silvasa unit for job work. Ld. Advocate also takes us to letter dt.23.5.2003 of the Jt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli on page 162 of the appeal book to highlight that they had been permitted to take cenvat credit on capital goods which they intended to despatch to job worker in terms of Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR. He submits that there is no dispute that the capital goods in question were received at the job worker's end and they were put to use for the purpose intended. There is also no dispute that the capital goods after completion of job work had been returned to them. In the circumstances, there is only a procedural deviation for which reason they should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the inputs and input services directly received/availed by the job worker. However, there is no such provision for direct receipt of the capital goods by the job worker and eligibility for availing credit by the main manufacturer. Ld. A.R. further submits that as the appellant had reversed the credit immediately after taking it, the cause of action would not arise at that point and that the same would arise only on the date when the capital goods have been received back and the credit was taken thereof by appellant. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. The provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules which are in dispute are very clear. No doubt, there is beneficial provision available which allows for input or input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erit in the plea of the ld. advocate that the entire manner of job work got done by the appellant was within the knowledge of the department. There is also no allegation that the goods, though received directly at the job worker's end, were not used for the purpose they were intended, or for that matter, that they were not returned back to the appellant etc. This being the case, we find that appellants become liable to the duty liability only because the procedure that they followed is not within the scope of Rule 3 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. In the event, we take a view that penalty imposed in this case would be an overkill, for which reason, the same cannot be sustained. Penalty is therefore set aside. 7. Appeal is partly allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
