9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some inputs such as fuel on their own account. On the ground that they were not maintaining separate account for the input fuel used for job work and since the goods manufactured on job work were being cleared without payment of duty, they should have reversed the cenvat credit on the inputs used for the job work before clearance, proceedings were initiated. In the impugned order, on the ground that appellant is not eligible for cenvat credit in respect of the goods manufactured on job work basis and has been confirmed into demand of Rs. 87,550/- with interest and equal amount of penalty has been imposed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. In impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisions in the case of M/s. Sterlite Ind. Limited vs. CCE, Pune 2005 (103) ELT 353 (Larger Bench), and H.C. Bombay has rejected Deptt. Appeal against the said order and case of M/s. Kamalakshi Finance Corp. Limited reported at 1991 (55) ELT 433 (S.C.) they have also filed reply to S.C.N. F.No. GPPL/F-122/2009-10 dated 18.01.2010, wherein they have submitted that they are doing job work on the inputs supplied by the Principal Manufacturer by utilising their own input i.e. fuel of L.P. Gas. They have not reversed cenvat credit used for job work, in spite of clearance of processed inputs without payment of due duties, on the ground that the final products manufactured from processed inputs, are dutiable and obligation of payment of due duties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b work basis and prescribed procedure was duly followed, the natural conclusion would be that they were aware that the declaration is required to be filed and the principal manufacturer was required to pay the duty on the final products. In spite of that in the show cause notice no allegation that the principal manufacturer had not paid the duty or the appellant did not have any evidence to this effect has been made. Further, the appellant has not even been asked before the issue of show cause notice or by the audit officers or by the original adjudicating authority to produce such evidence that principal manufacturer has paid the duty. When a claim has been made before the original adjudicating authority that the goods were manufactured on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn inputs were being used, the whole issue arises. This was the issue precisely before the Larger Bench in the case of Sterlite Industries. If own inputs are not used, the question of availing cenvat credit on inputs used in the goods cleared under job work basis and therefore exempted and does not arise. Therefore, it was not correct to say that Tribunal s Larger Bench decision is not applicable. 7. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to take note of the fact that this is not an additional ground and in fact appellant did not get an opportunity to produce evidence since neither in the show cause notice nor at the time of personal hearing they were asked to show that duty had been paid on the principal manufacturer. The claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
