TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 214/86 C.E. dated 2-3-86 is availed by them. A duty demand for Rs. 74,80,050/- has been confirmed with interest as applicable against the appellants on the ground that the appellant availed credit of the duty paid on various common inputs like aluminium wire, graphite suspension and packing materials and used the same both for the manufacture of dutiable as well as job work goods. Since goods were cleared on job work basis without payment of duty, and they had taken credit of the duty paid on inputs in respect of those goods also, the impugned order has been passed requiring them to pay duty at 10% of the value of the said goods cleared without payment of duty in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 since the appellant fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad reproduced the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. As regards amendment to Rule 57D, he drew our attention to CBEC manual which provided that even after amendments, the provisions relating to intermediate product and job work continued to remain the same. Further he also submits that provision of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding availment of exemption are not applicable to the present case in view of the fact that the goods manufactured on job work basis are exempted absolutely but subject to conditions. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR submits that it is not correct to say that the Commissioner has rejected the appeal only on the ground of non-applicability of Sterlite Inds. case. He submits that in the show-ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job worker takes the credit of the same his factory, utilises other inputs procured directly by him after taking the Modvat credit on the same and clear the processed goods to the principal manufacturer on payment of duty and the principal manufacturer takes the credit of the same in his factory and utilises such credit for payment of duty on his final products at the time of clearance. In such a situation, there can be no objection or dispute by the revenue as regards the admissibility of the credit on the inputs received directly by the job worker and utilised in his factory. The only effect of the above procedure adopted by the principal manufacturer and the job worker would be additional paper work. It is basically to avoid such a situa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the evidence. However, the Range Officer was writing to the job worker, who is the appellant, to produce the evidence which was required to be produced by the supplier. We are unable to appreciate the argument by the DR that it was the job worker who was liable to pay the duty and who was availing the exemption under Notification 214/86 and therefore he should have provided the proof by obtaining the same from the supplier. The supplier also was availing the benefit of 214/86 in view of the fact that to remove the inputs from the factory for further processing he requires to avail the benefit of Notification and otherwise he would not be able to send the inputs out for further processing. In the normal course, if he was to remove inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
