GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1057 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 1057 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 458 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

[2014(3) TMI 203 - CESTAT, New Delhi]. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. : 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 Sho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sis of the invoice issued by the job worker. The job worker had not availed benefit 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssue. In that case, the Tribunal followed the earlier decision in the case of M/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 Cre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oducts or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or 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 credi .....

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 or for any other purpose, provided the processed inputs or intermediate products 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the ground that on the same inputs, Cenvat credit cannot be availed twice - 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 tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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