TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n who receives the service or receives the goods on which benefit of Notification No.214/86 has been availed pays duty on the finished goods - The benefit can be extended to the appellant on a prima facie basis - the goods for job work were received by appellants under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and CENVAT credit had been taken on the inputs which makes it obligatory for the principal manufacturer to clear the finished goods on payment of duty only – thus there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery during the pendency of the appeal – stay granted. - Appeal No. E/25030/2013 - Misc. Order No. 26424/2013 - Dated:- 4-7-2013 - SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY AND SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri V. Raghur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. A89 (Bom.) to submit that where the manufacture of final products on which job work was done and cleared without payment of duty are used and cleared on payment of duty, such clearances by the job worker cannot be considered as clearance of exempted goods for the purpose of levy of 8%/10% of the value under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He submits that even though in the present case, the appellant is availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.8/2005-ST, the condition for availing the exemption in both Notification No.214/86 and Notification No.8/2005 are same viz., the finished products in which such goods on which exemption have been availed should be cleared on payment of duty. 3. Learned AR on the other hand wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich are cleared on payment of appropriate duty. It is not the case of the either side that the finished products have not suffered duty nor there is any such allegation also. The only ground on which the benefit has been denied is that the Notification No.8/2005 exempts the business auxiliary service and the appellants have used certain common input service in respect of both exempted and dutiable products. Under these circumstances, we consider that the benefit can be extended to the appellant relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Larger Bench on a prima facie basis. We also take note of the fact that in this case the goods for job work were received by appellants under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and CENV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
