Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (12) TMI 789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. Shri K.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The facts leading to this appeal by the Revenue are, in brief, as under : 1.1 The respondent manufacture woolen tops and woolen yarn chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 51 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also avail the facility of Cenvat credit on inputs as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. The respondent, in addition to manufacture of woolen tops and woolen yarn for themselves, also manufacture the same goods for principal manufacturers on job work basis out of the semi-processed material received by them under job work challans. The period of dispute in this case is from April 01 to Jan. 04. The respondent were using dutiable inputs like l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs initiated by show cause notice dt. 21-11-05 on the ground that under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, the Cenvat credit on the inputs shall not be denied to the job workers referred to in Rule 12B of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and since the respondent had undertaken job work process within the provisions of Rule 12B, the exemption from the obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 would be available to the respondent. 1.2 Against the above order of the Asstt. Commissioner, the Department filed a review appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the period of dispute from April 01 to Jan. 04 can be divided in two parts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. The Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly upheld the Asstt. Commissioner s order and dismissed the Deptt. s review appeal. The Revenue has now come in appeal against the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) s order upholding the dropping of the demand for the period from April 01 to March 03. The Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that since the provisions of Rule 12B were in force for period from 1-4-03 to 9-7-04, the benefit of the same would not be admissible to the respondent for the period prior to 1-4-03 and in respect of the period prior to 1-4-03, the Commissioner (Appeals) s reliance on the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (supra) is not correct as the said judgment is in respect of Rule 57C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty to the principal manufacturer. In view of the above, Shri Bhaskar pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) s order upholding the setting aside of Cenvat credit demand for the period from April 01 to March 03 is not correct. 3.2 Shri K.K. Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the Tribunal in a series of judgments starting from Larger Bench judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE (supra) has held that the job worker who received goods from his principal manufacturer for manufacture of goods on job work and return is entitled to take Cenvat credit of duty in respect of the other inputs used by him even if the job work goods were cleared without payment of duty; that the Tribunal s judgme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prior to 1-4-03 i.e. for the period from April 01 to March 03 when Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules was not there. During this period, the respondent were receiving raw material from the principal manufacturers and were processing the same into woolen tops/woolen yarn by using their own inputs for which the Cenvat credit was being taken. The principal manufacturers were clearing the finished goods on payment of duty. The point of dispute is as to whether in such a situation, the respondent as job worker were eligible for Cenvat credit of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods on job work, which were cleared without payment of duty to the principal manufacturers who, in turn, cleared the same on payment of duty. I find .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates