9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. Vs CCE Bangalore [2012 (7) TMI 713 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where inter alia, it was held that N/N. 214/86-CE, though issued under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944, is not per se an exemption notification. Impugned orders cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/337/2012, E/338/2012, E/339/2012 - FINAL ORDER No. 42077-42079/2018 - Dated:- 18-7-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri A.S. Monappa, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K.Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The issue in dispute in all these appeals being identical they are taken up together for common disposal. 2. The facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of exempted goods in terms of provision of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly, show cause notices dated 05.10.2010 (for the period June 2005 to January 2010), dated 03.03.2011 (for the period February 2010 to October 2010 and dated 17.11.2011 (for the period November 2010 to May 2011) were issued to appellants inter alia demanding allegedly irregularly taken cenvat credit amounts along with interest and also proposing imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, the cenvat credit amounts were demanded from the appellants with interest and also equal penalty were imposed. Hence this appeal. 3. The details of appeal wise impugned orders, period of dispute, and disputed amounts involved as furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned orders, the demands have been confirmed on the ground that the credit taken and used by the appellants on the quantity of furnace oil used in the manufacture of job work goods was inadmissible as the furnace oil used by the appellant for manufacture of rolled product on job work basis did not satisfy the definition of inputs as such rolled products are the final product of the principal manufacturer and not final product of the appellants. Hence demand confirmed in the impugned orders is altogether on a different ground which was not canvassed in the SCNs and they are beyond the scope of the SCNs. ii) Merely because the duty liability is discharged by the principal manufacturer in respect of such job work goods, the said goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities. He further submits that the from a harmonious reading of Rule 2(k) and Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it would be clear that to avail cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs, firstly the input should be used in the factory by the manufacturer of the final products and secondly input should not be used in the manufacture of exempted goods. In the instant case, the appellants are only job workers and not the manufacturer of final products and hence the adjudicating authority has been correct in confirming the demands. 6. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 7. The show cause notices from which the proceedings are initiated have found fault with the appellants for not having maintained separate accounts for com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE Bangalore 2016 (338) ELT 674 (Kar.), Tube Products of India Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai 2007 (216) ELT 245 (Tri.-Chennai) and in Varsed Detective Security Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur 2017 (5) GSTL 327 (Tri.-Del.), we find that impugned orders cannot be sustained. 8. Even on merits, we find that the matter is amply covered by the Tribunal in Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd. Vs CCE Bangalore - 2015 (318) ELT 340 (Tri.-Bang.) where inter alia, it was held that Notification No.214/86-CE, though issued under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944, is not per se an exemption notification. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below : 10.2 The Notification 214/86, though has been issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him to the supplier. The condition regarding payment of the duty on the final products manufactured using job-worked items sent by the job worker is to be fulfilled by the principal manufacturer. The job worker cannot be expected to compel the principal manufacturer to take over the responsibility of payment of duty on the job-worked items. Unless the supplier of the raw materials or semi-finished goods gives an undertaking to the jurisdictional central excise authority in charge of the job worker for discharging the liabilities in respect of Central Excise duty leviable on the finished products, the question of job worker even opting for the same does not arise. 9. The Tribunal in the above case had relied upon Tribunal s Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
