Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vadodara-I Versus M/s Sarabhai Chemicals

2015 (10) TMI 1057 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of MODVAT Credit - benefit of exemption under Notification No 214/86-CE dtd 25.3.1986 - Held that:- Adjudicating authority passed the order following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bright Steel Mac Fabrics Vs CCE, Ahmedabad - [1993 (9) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] where it has been held that the job worker cannot be compelled to follow the option under Notification No. 214/86 CE dtd 25.3.1986 and it is for the job worker to return the processed goods on payment of duty. The sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

: E/1269/2007 - Order No. A/11372 / 2015 - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Daval Shah, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri J Nagori, Authorised Representative Per : Mr.P.K. Das, Revenue filed this appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara-I, where the proceeding initiated in respect of the Show Cause Notice No. V.Ch. 30(4)22/demand/96 dtd 30th Sept.1996 was dropped. 2. A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efit of exemption under Notification No 214/86-CE dtd 25.3.1986. By the impugned Show Cause Notice, it was proposed to deny the Modvat Credit on intermediate goods supplied by the job worker, during the period from March 1993 to July 1996. 3. We find that the Adjudicating authority passed the order following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bright Steel Mac Fabrics Vs CCE, Ahmedabad - 1994(69) ELT.276 (Tri.) where it has been held that the job worker cannot be compelled to follow the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs CCE&ST Meerut 1 - 2014(3) TMI.203-CESTAT, New Delhi. The relevant portion of the decision in the case of M/s Thermax Ltd (supra) is reproduced below : 6. The appellant, had been receiving the duty paid inputs and had availed the Cenvat credit in respect of the same. These Cenvat credit availed inputs were, thereafter, sent to their job workers under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 without reversal of the credit for being processed into interme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r memos or any other document produced by the manufacturer or provider of output service taking the Cenvat credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eight days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received back within one hundred eight days, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs and he can take the Cenvat credit again when the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cts are returned back within a period of 180 days.There is no condition that for availing the facility of this Rule, the job worker should avail full duty exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E.There is no dispute that intermediate products made out of the inputs supplied by the Appellant were received back from the job workers within the stipulated period. The only point of dispute is as to whether the Appellant would be eligible for Cenvat credit of the duty paid by the job workers on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

first at the time of receipt the inputs by the Appellant in their factory from the input manufacturers and second time in respect of duty paid on intermediates goods made out of input supplied by Appellant upon receiving the same from the job workers. Logically, the ground on which the Cenvat credit is sought to be denied is totally incorrect. There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty Exemption under Notification .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version