Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 660 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - CENVAT Credit - removal of inputs to job-worker - specific permission granted earlier was withdrawn - applicability of sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 deals with the situation of payment of equal amount of CENVAT credit availed in respect of inputs, when the same were removed ‘as such’ from the factory of the manufacturer. Sub-rule (5a) of Rule 4 allowed a manufacturer to retain the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs removed as such or after it partially processed, when the same are sent to a job-worker for further processing. The said sub-rule mandates that the inputs or the resultant product manufactured therefrom have to be received back by the manufacturer within 180 days of their being sent from the factory. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the appellant had removed the raw materials from the bonded warehouse to its job-worker, namely, M/s. Svizera Labs Pvt Ltd for manufacture of finished excisable goods under sub-contracting basis. Since the raw material/inputs were removed by the appellant for further manufacture of the finished goods, the case of the appellant falls under the purview of sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 4 of the Rules. The permission letter for removal of raw material withdrawn subsequently by the department with effect from 29/01/2007 cannot be the ground to deny the CENVAT benefit inasmuch as availment of CENVAT credit is permissible on the basis of receipt of inputs in the factory. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|