Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2019 (7) TMI 2044 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services which were used by their job worker which is again the unit of the appellant itself - case of the department is that since the services were used by the job workers unit and not by the appellant s unit therefore credit is not admissible - Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - The facts of the case are not much in dispute. In as much as the entire inputs are sent by appellant to their own job worker unit it is exclusively for carrying out the job work of the appellants. The job work is conducted under Rules 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Since the entire activity of the job work is in respect of manufacture of goods for appellants therefore the services were used in or relation to the manufacture of final product of appellant. Therefore the appellants are entitled for the Cenvat Credit. From the provisions of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of job work goods manufactured under Notification no. 214/86-C.E. it is absolutely clear that even though the job worker is not discharging the excise duty but carrying out job work on behalf of the principle under notification 214/86-C.E. on the services and inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods the principle is entitled for CENVAT Credit. Therefore there is nothing wrong in availing the CENVAT Credit by the appellant on the input services used at the job work premises. The impugned orders are set aside - All the appeals are allowed.
|