9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision: 20.1.2012 After examining the records and hearing both sides , I find that the dispute in this case is regarding CENVAT credit of Rs.2,81,900/-. The assessee (appellant) had availed CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty and education cess totaling to Rs.2,81,900/- on inputs used for job work during the material period. The job-worked goods were cleared without payment of duty, to the princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the original authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that CENVAT credit could be availed by only a manufacturer or producer of final product and that the assessee was not eligible for the benefit which was admissible only to a person who actually brought the final product into existence. The appellate authority also referred to Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004. The appellate authority also r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty for further utilization in the manufacture of final product, which were cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provisions of Rule 57C of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The equivalent provisions of Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 appear to have been invoked by the lower authorities against the assessee on an essentially similar se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
