TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal product which would have to include the cost of the inputs and in respect of which Modvat credit could be taken at the time of clearance of the final product and thus, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of the Revenue that the respondents should have reversed the Cenvat credit taken before sending the goods to the job worker since the job worker had not followed the procedure of job work - Following decision of COMMR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-I Versus ROHAN DYES & INTERMEDIATED LTD. [2013 (4) TMI 277 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/2144/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. 53567/2014 - Dated:- 5-9-2014 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. R.K. Singh, JJ. For the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority held that the appellants had taken credit twice on the same inputs and therefore disallowed the Cenvat credit of CVD amounting to ₹ 1,78,93,790/- imposing equal penalty for wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. 3. The appellants have contended that : (i) The inputs were duly imported by them and CVD was paid thereon. The said inputs were sent to the job worker under cover of challans and therefore they are entitled to Cenvat credit of CVD paid on such inputs. (ii) It is not in dispute that the job worker was liable to pay duty if they did not avail of the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 as the intermediate product manufactured by them was dutiable and availment of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by the manufacturer of the final product on the inputs supplied by it to the manufacturer of the intermediate products which credit is reversed ultimately when the final product is removed from such manufacturers factory. The appellant therein further contended that as far as the appellant (the intermediate purchaser) was concerned, it was not liable to pay duty on the inputs supplied by TELCO since it had not taken credit for modvat in respect of those inputs nor could value of the inputs be added to the excisable value of the assemblies. 12. In such case, the Supreme Court made the following observations : We are of the view that the submission of the appellant is correct. The Tribunal appears to have been confuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute that according to the modvat scheme, it is the modvat of such final product which would have to include the cost of the inputs and in respect of which Modvat credit could be taken at the time of clearance of the final product and thus, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of the Revenue that the respondents should have reversed the Cenvat credit taken before sending the goods to the job worker since the job worker had not followed the procedure of job work. It may not be out of place to mention here that that what was earlier provision contained in Rule 57F(2)(b) is exactly the present provision of Rule 4(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 14. We do not find any substance in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrought copper rods at concessional rate of duty of ₹ 2900/- PMT and hence was not admissible to the appellants, is based upon a wrong premise. There is also no dispute that the imported copper bars purchased by the appellants from MMTC, Ludhiana had suffered additional duty to the extent of ₹ 3300/- PMT which amount is admissible as modvat credit under Rule 57A. The benefit of credit of ₹ 3300/- PMT cannot be denied on the sole ground that the job workers had opted to pay duty on the rods rolled from the copper bars without availing modvat credit of ₹ 3300/-. There is further no dispute that in case duty had not been paid at the job workers premises, the appellants would have been eligible to the modvat credit of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
