TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gth of the N/N. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. Whether the CESTAT is right in holding that Modvat credit availed by an assessee was exactly equivalent to the amount of Excise duty paid by the input manufacturer without availing exemption, the consequence being revenue neutral and hence there could be no demand for reversal of the credit? - Held that: - reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2004 (12) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that what had been availed of by the assessee by way of Modvat credit, was in respect of the duty paid by the input-manufacturer not availing the exemption, and the fact being the revenue neutral, the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artons falling under the Heading 4819 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Evidently, the assessee was sending semi-finished printed sheets to its sister Unit by name Kohinoor Printers Private Limited (Unit-I), for conversion into three ply corrugated printed sheets. It is stated that at Unit-I, the corrugated paper was pasted on the printed sheets and this process was called E-fluting. After processing, the same were sent to Unit-II. Thus, the Revenue treated Unit-I as job worker. Independently, Unit-I had remitted duty on the job of conversion. On this, the first respondent/assessee availed Cenvat credit for the inputs used. The Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the decision of the Delhi Tribunal reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 456 (Rosa Sugar Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Luknow), as well as the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Vadodara v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 213 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd.), held that the benefit availed by the assessee, of Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the input by the sister concern was not liable to be denied to the assessee on the strength of the Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. The Tribunal furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat what had been availed of by the assessee by way of Modvat credit, was in respect of the duty paid by the input-manufacturer not availing the exemption, and the fact being the revenue neutral, the question of reversing the claim made by the assessee did not arise. Applying the said decision, we have no hesitation in rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. In the result, C.M.A. No. 2752/2008 is dismissed. No costs. 7. The issue raised in C.M.A. No. 456/2009, which has arisen from the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in No. 816/2008, dated 1-8-2008, is exactly identical to the one raised in C.M.A. No. 2752/2008, and applying the above decision in C.M.A. No. 2752/2008, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
