9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of facts against the job-worker, later on appeal, the same was set aside. On appeal by the job-worker against the confirmation of demand, it has been now held by the Tribunal in favour of the job-worker by dropping the demand and upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court holding that the method of valuation adopted by the job worker is in order. Since the demand being not sustainable against the job-worker, the recovery of cenvat credit on the ground of suppression in making the differential duty payment from the appellant is unsustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Manasi Patil, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H. Jayathirtha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtaining on the differential duty paid by the job worker amounting to Rs.60,81,573/- as per Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed denying cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices issued by the job worker and availed by the appellant, with interest and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that against the confirmation of the demand by the adjudicating authority, the job worker M/s. Advance Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal analysing the provisions of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The job worker after payment of differential duty issued supplementary invoices to the appellant who have availed cenvat credit on the said documents. Even though initially adjudication order confirmed the demanded amount with interest invoking suppression of facts against the job-worker, later on appeal, the same was set aside. 8. We find the reason for denying cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued to the appellant by the job worker solely rests on Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 which reads as follows:- Rule 9(1)(b): a supplementary invoice, issued by a manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
