9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Accordingly, the goods were cleared by the job worker on payment of duty. The appellant being principal manufacturer availed, the Cenvat Credit of duty paid by the job worker. The case of the department is that since the appellant have cleared the cenvatable input under Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR,2004, job worker was not supposed to pay the duty, instead, he was supposed to avail exemption Notification No.214/86-CE. Accordingly, the duty paid by the job worker is not available as CENVAT Credit to the appellant. 2. Shri Ishan Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that irrespective of the inputs sent under Rule 4(5)(a) since the job worker has paid the duty and said job worked goods were used in the manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input it was duty paid, hence they have were rightly taken the Cenvat Rule 4(5)(a) provides for movement of the input on which Cenvat Credit was availed . Accordingly such input was sent to the job worker in terms of Rule 4(5)(a). As regard the Notification No. 214/86-CE being a conditional Notification, it is optional for the job worker whether to avail the exemption or to pay the excise duty. The job worker undisputedly being a manufacturer has option either to avail exemption to avail by duty. In the present case job worker chose to pay the duty without availing the Notification No. 204-CE which cannot be objected, as there is no provision for compulsory availment of Notification No. 214/86-CE. As regard the duty paid by the job worker i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee by way of Modvat credit, was in respect of the duty paid by the input-manufacturer not availing the exemption, and the fact being the revenue neutral, the question of reversing the claim made by the assessee did not arise. Applying the said decision, we have no hesitation in rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue." * CCE vs. Sundaram Auto Components Ltd., 2015 (10) TMI 720 - Madras High Court "4. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on 15.3.2010. However, a further appeal filed by the assessee in appeal No.E/392/2010 was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 1.12.2010. A small mistake had crept in the said order and when it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by way of a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, what the first respondent collected was only the duty that had to be paid on account of the mistake committed by the job worker. The original authority and the appellate authority wrongly construed the same as a double benefit by applying the theory of unjust enrichment. This is what was rectified by the Tribunal, Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law. Therefore, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. The appeal is dismissed. No costs." * CCE & ST, Vadodara vs. Sarabhai Chemicals, 2017 (346) ELT 458 (Tri - Ahmd.) "3. We find that the Adjudicating authority passed the order following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bright Steel Mac Fabrics v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 1994 (69) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, re-conditioning or for the manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture of final products or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the manufacturer or provider of output service taking the Cenvat credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received back within one hundred eighty days, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs and he can take the Cenvat credit again when the inputs or capital goods are received back in his factory or in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in their factory from the input manufacturers and second time in respect of duty paid on intermediates goods made out of input supplied by appellant upon receiving the same from the job workers. Logically, the ground on which the Cenvat credit is sought to be denied is totally incorrect. There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job workers. If the job worker decides to pay the duty on the intermediate products manufactured by him on job work basis for the principal manufacturer, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
