9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rief are that the Appellant had undertaken manufacture of Parle Branded confectionaries as Contract Manufacturing Unit (CMU) on behalf of the principal M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. The activity of manufacture undertaken is as per clause (ii) of Notification No.36/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001 for which an authorization dated 17.4.2009 as required under said Notification has been filed with the jurisdictional ACCE. As per clause (ii) of Notification No.36/2001-CE(NT), the inputs, capital goods were procured by M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., the principal manufacturer, which were received in factory of Appellant directly from the manufacturer-suppliers on payment of excise duty for use in manufacture of confectionaries on behalf of principal. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellants is on behalf of principal M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. under clause (ii) of Notification No.36/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 wherein inputs are converted into finished goods /final products - Confectioneries which are packed in wrappers /corrugated boxes and despatched on payment of duty on behalf of principal manufacturer M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. to their depots for sale. The entire manufacturing activity is undertaken by Appellants as Contract Manufacturing unit (CMU) and not just a job-worker to carry out some process as fully manufacturing process on final product is carried-out by Appellant on behalf of principal and duty paid on Retail Sale Price under Section 4A of CEA. 9. In order to promote the sale of final product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rival contentions, we find that the issue herein is squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by the Larger Bench ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Krishna Food Products (supra). Under similar facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Tribunal had referred the following questions for consideration by the Larger Bench:- "(i) Whether issuance of Input Service Distributors‟ invoice by Parle to its contract manufacturing unit is legal and correct when the contract manufacturing is carried out in terms of Notification No. 36/2001-CE (NT). (ii) Irrespective of the position that whether issuance of Input Service Distributors‟ invoice by Parle to Krishna is correct or otherwise, whether Krishna still is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, it would not be necessary to answer the second issue referred by the Division Bench. This issue is whether the appellant would, irrespective of the answer to the first issue, be entitled to avail CENVAT credit when input service is attributed to the goods on which excise duty is paid and includes the cost of services on which credit was taken.
46. The matter may now be placed before the Division bench for disposal of the appeal."
17. In view of the aforementioned view expressed by the Larger bench on the very same question, we follow the same and allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed with consequential relief.
(Pronounced in open court on 16.01.2025) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
