Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 616 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - inputs were being sent to job worker - job worker was paying duty on the final product, which was being cleared by them on behalf of the respondents, by raising the invoice on their account - Revenue contends that the respondents were not entitled to the CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs, in as much they have not paid the duty themselves on the final product manufactured by the job worker - Commissioner set aside demand - Held that:- as much as the duty on the final product stands paid by the job worker, the respondents are entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs so supplied by them to the job worker. The fact that the assessee himself has not discharged the duty liability would not result in denial of credit. Movement of inputs to the job worker was with the permission of the Commissioner and the said fact of availment of credit was duly reflected by the assessee in their statutory records. In such a scenario, no suppression can be attributed to the respondents and extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. If the goods manufactured at the job worker's end were returned to the assessee and then cleared by them on payment of duty, they were admittedly entitled to availment of CENVAT credit duty paid on the inputs. As per the respondents, when the duty was paid by the job worker, the same stands re-imbursed by them. As such, it has to be observed that the duty is deemed to have been paid by the manufacturer, through the job worker and the Revenue has received the entire duty element due to them. In such a case, denial of credit to the respondents would not be justified. - Decided against Revenue.
|