Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 150 - CESTAT CHENNAICENVAT Credit - input services - exempt services or not - denial for the reason that the activity of machining operations is an exempted service as per Notification No.25/2012-ST dt. 20.06.2012 (Sl.No.30) - HELD THAT:- When the semi finished gods are received by the job worker under challans as per Rule 4 (5) (a), it can be understood that the activity undertaken by the appellant is also part of the manufacturing activity. In other words, the job worker manufactures on behalf of the principal manufacturer. The notification No.214/86 helps to decide as to who has to pay Central Excise duty on the finished goods when manufacturing activity is carried out using job work facility. Since the appellants are doing part of the manufacturing activity, it cannot be said that the activity undertaken by them is service which is exempted under Notification No.25/2012-ST. Even if the process carried out by the appellant does not amount to ‘manufacture’, when N/N. 214/86 comes into application it has to be understood that the job worker is undertaking part of the manufacturing activity on behalf of the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. SHREE ORGANO CHEMICALS AHMEDABAD P. LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST, AHMEDABAD [2019 (2) TMI 852 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] had occasion to consider a similar situation and has held that the credit availed in respect of job work activities would be eligible to the assessee. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|