TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that:- 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-CE. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job-workers. When the inputs, in question, have suffered twice, first in the hand of input manufacturers from whom the Appellant had procured the inputs and second time in the hand of job workers who at the time of clearance of intermediate products made out of the inputs paid duty on value which included the cost of the inputs, the credit of the duty paid on the intermediate pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The job workers processed the inputs received free of charge from the Appellant and in course of processing used some of their own inputs in respect of which they had taken the Cenvat Credit. The processed inputs (intermediate products) were cleared by job workers to the Appellant on payment of duty on value equal to the cost of input supplied free of charge by the Appellant (excluding the excise duty whose credit has been taken by the Appellant) plus the job charges, including the cost of their own material used without availing Cenvat Credit on the value of free supply of input made by the appellant. These clearances of processed inputs(intermediate products) were made by the job workers under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.09.12 by which the above two Cenvat Credit demands were confirmed against the Appellant along with interest U/S 11AB and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Rule 15(2) ibid. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 1.3 Though the stay application had earlier been listed for hearing on 2nd November 2013, on mention that this appeal involves only a short point of law and the issue is recurring issue, the Bench was of the view that the matter can be heard for final disposal. Accordingly, the Bench ordered for listing of the matter for final hearing on 01.10.2013 and the Department was directed not to take coercive measures for the recovery in the meantime. 2. Heard both the si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts and second time in the hand of the job workers as part of the value of intermediate products manufactured by them. He further pleaded that in any case, the intermediate products manufactured by the job-workers are products different from the inputs and therefore, Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on the same cannot be denied to the Appellant. In view of the above submissions, it was prayer of the Appellant that impugned order is contrary to the Provisions of the Law and hence the same is not sustainable. 4. Sh. S.K. Panda, learned Jt. CDR, on behalf of Revenue, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and pleaded that the Appellant has taken Cenvat Credit on the same inputs twice - first at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucts] 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 eight days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received back within one hundred eight 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 the premises of the provider of output service. 7. Thus on perusal of the above Rule, it is clear that a man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de 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-CE. 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 Court in case of Ujagar Prints Vs. Union of India, reported in 1989(3) ELT-439 (SC), they would be required to pay duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
