9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of credit without appreciating the fact that denial of substantial benefit to the Appellant amounts to doubt taxation - invocation of longer period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The dispute is relating to the MODVAT credit availed on 88.637 metric tons of Tin Sheets during the period 1991-92 to 1993-94 by the appellant herein. The appellant M/s. ECPL has claimed the MODVAT credit on these inputs. It is not in dispute that these inputs were directly sent to the Job Worker, M/s MCPL for printing and cutting. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of JAYPEE REWA CEMENT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MP [ 2001 (8) TMI 1332 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Rule 57A(1) did not requires inputs to be utilized in factory premises, that the cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - decided in favor of assessee. - C.E.A.No.43/2019 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2021 - HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR APPELLANT (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA B. HANJER, ADV.) RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV. FOR R-1; J U D G M E N T S. SUJATHA, J., This appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( Act for short) challenging the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru ( Tribunal for short) in Final Order Nos.21433-21437/2018 , whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeals confirming the duty and penalty of ₹ 3,57,314.05 and ₹ 1,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC)? 3. The appellant/assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of Crown Corks falling under CSH 8309.10 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee having its factory at Kunigal had no facility for printing of Tin Sheets, used to send Tin Sheets directly to M/s. Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., (M/s. MCPL/Job Worker) for printing and cutting on job work basis. The officers attached to the Preventive Unit of Central Excise, Bengaluru II Division visited the premises of Job Worker and seized certain documents on the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods. The officers recorded the statements of various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained either by Job Worker or by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant inviting the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee s own case in EMCEE Crown Corks (P) Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 2002 (149) ELT 639 would contend that the Tribunal has examined the issue of MODVAT credit availed by the appellant relating to the previous year and after examining, it was held that the goods (Tin Sheets) were sent on job work to M/s. MCPL and mere non-maintenance of records and nonobservance of procedures shall not take away the substantial right to avail the credit. Despite this order of the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant herein. The appellant M/s. ECPL has claimed the MODVAT credit on these inputs. It is not in dispute that these inputs were directly sent to the Job Worker, M/s MCPL for printing and cutting. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement vs. Commissioner reported in 2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC) has held that Rule 57A(1) did not requires inputs to be utilized in factory premises, that the credit is permissible in respect of intermediate goods received from Job Worker. The credit can be allowed only if the intermediate products received by the manufacturer of the said final products are accompanied by any of the documents and it is evidenced that the payment of duty on such inputs of capital goods has been paid. 9. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has held that inputs were used by the Job Worker and in such circumstances, the MODVAT credit denied on the ground that the said inputs were not brought into factory of the assessee, but utilized by the Job Worker cannot be the ground for denial of the MODVAT credit. 11. It is significant to note that in the assessee s own case, the Tribunal has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the same or to distinguish the said decision of the Tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid, we have analyzed the material aspects on record. M/s ECPL no doubt has sent the inputs directly to the Job Worker M/s MCPL, it is an admitted fact that M/s MCPL has no inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
