TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of excise duty if ultimate manufacturer was to pay the duty at the time of clearance. Therefore, this amendment of 2005 since has only fixed manufacturer liable to comply with Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, to my considered view, job worker cannot be asked to comply the same again on the ground that he is also a part of the manufacturing process. There is no need to further dwell into the issue with reference to S.No. 30 of the Notification No. 22/2012-ST to interpret the nature of work undertaken by the appellant job worker. When such a finding of the adjudication authority is not appealed against by the respondent department, the work undertaken by the appellant was part of the process of manufacturing and not a services re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice that was confirmed in the adjudication process and appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) resulted in a direction for re-quantification on proportionate basis to the tune of exempted service along with interest and equivalent penalty. Appellant questioned the legality of such order before this Tribunal. 3. In a memo of appeal and during course of hearing of the appeal as well as in the written note, learned Counsel Mr. V.B. Gaikwad submitted that the primary basis of confirmation of such order by Commissioner (Appeals) was that he placed reliance on Hema Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2017 (5)GSTL-43 (Tri. Del.) that has been distinguished in Shree Organo Chemicals Ahmedabad P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, reported in 2019 (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted service for which the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the duty demand etc. is liable to be set aside. 4. For contra learned AR for the respondent department submitted that the ratio of Hema Engineering Industries Ltd. case law is squarely applicable to the appellant and not the above referred decisions on which appellant s Counsel has placed reliance for the reason that those judgments were based on inputs only and not on input services. Placing reliance of the judgments of Union of India Vs. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) and Blue Precision Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV, reported in 2011 (274) E.L.T. 460 (Tri.-Del.), she argued that the process undertaken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a part of the manufacturing process. Further, Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 introduced a proviso vide Notification No. 13/2005 dated 01.03.2005 in respect of job workers, as per definition of job worker contained in Rule 12 AA of the Central Excise Rules, so as to extend the benefits of Cenvat credit on inputs to the job workers provided those inputs were used in manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty by the job worker and such proviso has not been worded at the beginning with subject to the other provisions of Rule 6 or any other Rule , so as to make the job worker liable to comply Rule 6(3) also. This being fact on record and position of law and there being a clear finding of the adjudicating authority namely Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
