TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final product since then exported on behalf of the appellant only therefore even though part manufacturing carried out by job worker on their own since entire final product is complete on behalf of the appellant and said final product has been exported on behalf of the appellant they are legally entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of fitment. From the records, it is observed that the supply of fitment by the appellant under Rule 4(5)(a), use of said fitment for export goods and the export of the final product though from the premises of the job worker ie M/s. NSSL is not under dispute, on the basis of invoices, ARE 1 and other export documents, the Cenvat Credit in respect of fitment used in the export goods cannot be denied. - from where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tand modified to the above extent. 2. The fact of the case is that appellant has imported fitment and availed Cenvat credit in respect of CVD paid thereon. The said fitment was sent to their one of the group company M/s. Neco Schubert and Salzer Ltd.(M/s. NSSL) under cover of challan issued under Rule 4(5)(a) under job work for fitting into cylinder heads being supplied by M/s. NSSL. After use of fitment by job worker M/s. NSSL finished goods i.e. cylinder head duly fitted with said fitment cleared from the premises of M/s. NSSL for export on behalf of the appellant. The department by show cause notice dated 3/3/2005 proposed denial of Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 15,72,876/- on the ground that appellant is not manufacturer in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant. Ld Counsel also submitted all the relevant challans and ARE -1 and record of goods sent for job work. He also placed reliance on the following case laws: (a) S.G. Zaveri Pharmapack Vs. CC. Ex. Mum-V[2007(217) E.L.T. 591(Tri- Mumbai)] (b) Amul Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot [2006(206) ELT 1043(Tri. Mum)] (c) Bata India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bang-II[2006(199)ELT 847(Tri. Bang.)] (d) Vikram Cement Vs. C.C. Ex. Indore[2006 (194) ELT (S.C.)] (e) Kay Cee Electrical Vs. C.C. Ex, New Delhi[2005(182) ELT 136 (Tri Del)] (f) Mathabros Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex. Mum[2005(185) ELT 214(Tri. Mum)] (g) C. C. Ex., Chandigarh Vs. Alpha Drugs (India) Ltd. 2002(140) ELT 43 (P H)] (h) C.C. Ex., Chennai Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the appellant they are legally entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of fitment. From the records, it is observed that the supply of fitment by the appellant under Rule 4(5)(a), use of said fitment for export goods and the export of the final product though from the premises of the job worker ie M/s. NSSL is not under dispute, on the basis of invoices, ARE 1 and other export documents, the Cenvat Credit in respect of fitment used in the export goods cannot be denied. I have gone through the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel, ratio of these judgments are more or less applicable in the facts of the present case, however I do not discuss each and every judgments. It is also observed that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) himself in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
