2018 (6) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ged in Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The said rule requires for reversal of credit when inputs are removed as such, while Rule 4(5)(a) contemplates the situation when goods are removed and returned. Even if the appellant had reversed the credit, they would be able to take credit of the duty paid when the job worked goods / finished crates are returned by the job worker as these are cleared on payment of duty - Taking note of this fact and also the situation being a revenue neutral one, the demand cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt such items on returnable gate passes to independent crate manufacturers. These job workers manufactured crates using the items/inputs supplied by the appellant and cleared the crates to the appellant on payment of Central Excise duty. Such crates were used by the appellant for packing the finished products such as float glasses and mirrors etc. manufactured by them. Though it is alleged that the appellant has violated Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, he submitted that removal of inputs for job work are not removed 'as such'. The appellants have removed the goods under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which do not prescribe for maintaining any records except a simple account for dispatch and return of the goods from the jo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ause notice invoking the extended period is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. There is no dispute that the inputs supplied to job worker for manufacture of wooden crates which were used for packing of finished products by the appellant. The removal of goods for job work credit of the duty paid cannot be considered as removal of inputs 'as such' as it envisaged in Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The said rule requires for reversal of credit when inputs are removed as such, while Rule 4(5)(a) contemplates the situation when goods are removed and returned. The Tribunal considered a similar issue in Southern Lubrication (P) Ltd. 2013 (295) ELT 598 (Tri. Bang.). The portion is quoted as under:- " 2. After hearing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X