Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1167 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - job-work - inputs on which Cenvat Credit had been availed by the Chopanki unit, which were used in the job work carried out by that unit for the Bhiwadi unit - Revenue is of the view that the Chopanki units is required to pay duty on such goods under Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that: - similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the against of DCM Engineering Products V/s CCE [2009 (8) TMI 545 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] in which the Tribunal has held that when there is no physical removal of the cenvated inputs, there is no requirement to reverse the credit the credit under Rule 3 (5) ibid - the inputs in the Chopanki unit have been used to carry out job work for the Bhiwadi unit, and such goods have been further used by the Bhiwadi unit for manufacture of final products which have ultimately been cleared on payment of duty. Consequently, there is no justification in raising the demand against the Chopanki unit. CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - stock transfer - Revenue has raised such demand by invoking Rule 9(1) (b) of the CCR 2004, on the ground that this credit had been taken by the Bhiwadi unit on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by the Chopanki unit - Held that: - similar issue had come up before the Hon’ble Karnatka High Court in the case of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents [2010 (2) TMI 524 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) are not applicable in case of stock transferred when there is no sale - demand for reversal set aside. CENVAT credit - demand for reversal against the Bhiwadi unit on the ground that this credit has been taken by that unit on the basis of certain invoices covering use of the cenvated inputs by Chopanki unit in job work for Bhiwadi unit - Revenue is seeking to reverse such credit at the Bhiwadi unit by taking the view that the Chopanki unit was not required to pay any duty - Held that: - It is settled position of law that the assessee who is taking the Cenvat credit is entitled to do so once the duty has been paid and goods received even if the duty on the product at the suppliers end is subsequently varied - there is no justification to demand reversal in this case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|