9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a job worker. It is their own unit. (ii) Copper anode is neither an input nor partially processed input so as to qualify for movement under Rule 4(5a), the preceding Rule of Rule 4(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the Respondent filed an appeal with Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the request of the Respondent for the following reasons:- (a) Copper anode needs to be considered as a semi-processed input in the manufacture of copper cathode and continuous copper wire rods. (b) Same unit of a manufacturer can be considered as a job worker as per Board's letter No. 12/91-Cx. 8 dated 28.2.1991 (c) The instructions of the Board in Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX issued from file F. No. 6/39/2000-CX.1 dated 1.7.2002 regarding the valuation of the goods captively consumed / not involving sale is not relevant to the permission granted under Rule 4(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeal), Revenue has filed this appeal. 5. In para 19 of the order the Commissioner (Appeal) further ordered as under:- "19. It may made ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the Ld.Counsel for Revenue is that Rule 4(6) will not apply to a dutiable final product since it can no longer be considered as an intermediate product. In this matter, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in CCE Meerut Vs . Tehri Girders Ltd. - 2010 (253) ELT 327 (Tri-Del). The Ld. Counsel points out that Commissioner (Appeal) did not give any reason for not following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tehri Girders Ltd. 10. The Ld. Counsel argues that Rule 4 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules permit clearance of inputs, on which Cenvat credit has been taken, as such from the factory or for removal of intermediate goods. There is no doubt that copper anode is not an input on which the respondent had taken credit. The other category of goods that can be removed is partially processed goods. But the counsel argues that anodes cannot be considered as partially processed goods because these are goods which are being sold by the respondents as final product. So Rule 4 (6) cannot be applied considering the goods as "partially processed inputs". 11. There is a ground in the appeal memorandum that one manufacturer cannot be job-worker for himself in another factory. It was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction over the manufacturer sending inputs or partially processed inputs may allow such movement directly from the premises of the job worker subject to such conditions including the manner of payment of duty, as may be prescribed by him. Thus, it may be seen that the rule does not prohibit the payment of duty at the principal manufacturer's end when the goods are being cleared from the premises of job worker. Therefore, necessary action may please be taken in the light of the clarification given above." So the Counsel submits that Revenue is trying to deny a facility which CBEC itself approved as far back as 2003. 15. Coming to the merits of the issue, he argues that at Tuticorin factory they are manufacturing cathodes and copper wire for which copper anode is a raw material. If the manufacturing process starting from copper concentrate to copper anode to copper cathode is considered, copper anode is an intermediate product. The argument that copper anode cannot be considered as an intermediate product can apply only in a situation where no downstream products are manufactured in the factory at Tuticorin . This is not the position. In this matter, the facts of the case of T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y at Tuticorin . It is final product when it is cleared on payment of duty. It is intermediate product when it is further used in the manufacture of cathode or wire rods. Once the goods are recognized to be intermediate product there is no reason to deny the benefit Rule 4 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. That is what was advised to the respondent by CBEC. That is what is decided by Tribunal in very many decisions given in the context of erstwhile rule 57 F( 4) which provision was replaced by Rule 4 (6) in the new Rules. I do not see any reason to unsettle this settled position. The facts of the case Tehri Girders Ltd. is different from the facts of this case because for them the product they were trying to remove under Rule 4(6) was not an intermediate product in the factory from which it was sought to be removed. 21. The order dt . 12-4-2004 of the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 353-376/2004 of the same assessee was given at a stage when the appellants were manufacturing no downstream products from anodes at Tuticorin factory as is evident from para 3 of the order. The issue whether copper anode can be considered as an intermediate product for further manufacture of cathodes or copper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
