Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 827 - CESTAT AHMEDABADCENVAT Credit - Daman Unit had sent certain cenvatted inputs (CRGO sheets) to their Vadodara unit, to undertake processing thereon - demand on the ground that processed goods have not been returned back to Daman unit, and such goods were not used in Daman unit but at Vadodara unit/ Amod Steel Processors - Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rues, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the various customers have received the processed goods and also certified to this effect and at the same time, no cogent evidence is adduced by revenue to show that such goods in fact physically travelled from Vadodara to customers premises, instead of from Daman to customer premises, as claimed by the Appellant. In any case, it is found that the entire controversy can be decided on legal basis, without entering into the chequered controversy regarding return movement of goods to Daman and from Daman to eventual customers, in light of certain admitted facts. There are merits in the legal contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that since the inputs were originally sent under Rule 4(5)(a) procedure to job workers, and since finally duty stands discharged by the Principal at Daman on finished goods, evenif it is cleared directly from job workers to eventual customers, neither Cenvat Credit requires to be denied to the Appellant at Daman nor duty demand can be raised on the job worker at Vadodara, even though they are the actual manufacturers, since the duty admittedly stands paid at Daman, and even collected by revenue authorities as such. The present case is not one where the Appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No.214/86-CE, but instead, one where job work procedure under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was adopted. Rule 4(6) thereof has a specific provision to permit the finished goods to be cleared directly from job worker’s premises where the Principal pays duty thereon, which is done in the present case. As regards not seeking permission under Rule 4(6), the impugned order itself at Para 10.6 suggests that had such permission been sought, there would not have been any demand as such. Thus, not seeking such permission is merely a procedural lapse and there is no loss to the revenue department in the matter as such anyway. That since admittedly, in the case on hand, the Principal manufacturer, i.e. the Daman unit, paid duty on finished goods, evenif it is produced at job worker’s end, there is no question of recovery of duty once again from job worker at Vadodara unit at all. As regards the Cenvat Credit demand on Daman unit, having paid duty as principal manufacturer, which is admitted by revenue authorities as well, the input stage credit too cannot be denied to them in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appeals therefore deserve to be allowed, since the demand cannot be sustained on merits - Appeal allowed.
|