TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That job worker sends the machinised goods to KTTM Ltd. Therefore, the question of law raised by the Department proceeds to a wrong presumption that the assessee had done nothing except testing and packing. Therefore, the question of law is thoroughly misconceived as it does not arise out of the facts of the case. The questions of law raised in other appeal also proceed on the premise that whatever has been done before the goods are received from the KTTM Ltd., have to be completely forgotten. This is not a case where the assessee is attempting to claim CENVAT Credit twice over. Whatever credit was claimed by them before they sent it to KTTM Ltd., was actually reversed. Therefore, the credit was still available for the assessee to tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product has emerged? 2. In view of the above, whether the CESTAT is right in allowing the CENVAT credit on automotive parts which had not undergone any manufacturing process in the premises of the appellant when the basic condition, envisaged in Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not satisfied? 2. Heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Department and Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. The assessee admittedly receives various inputs such as steel scrap, pig iron and chemicals and manufacture castings. Thereafter these castings are sent to job workers for machining operation. While sending them to the job workers, the goods were cleared w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The assessee exported the same after testing and packing and claimed CENVAT Credit. 5. However a show cause notice dated 1.7.2003 was issued proposing to disallow the CENVAT Credit in respect of the 2nd case and this resulted in an order in original dated 29.8.2003 dropping the proposals. 6. However, another show cause notice dated 28.10.2004 was issued. During the pendency of this second show cause notice in respect of certain other items, the Department filed an appeal against the order in original dated 29.8.2003 dropping further proceedings on the first show cause notice. This appeal was allowed by an order dated 8.12.2004, forcing the assessee to file a further appeal before the CESTAT. 7. In the meantime, the second show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notices and different orders in original. Let us keep this aside for a moment and test whether the contentions of the Department are correct or not? 11. We have already extracted the susbtantial questions of law raised in C.M.A.No.3148 of 2007. These questions revolve around the issue as to whether the input procured solely for the purpose of export by the assessee is entitled to CENVAT Credit when the goods were subjected only to testing and packing. 12. But the facts of the case show that before the goods were handed over to KTTM, the assessee had undertaken a series of processes. Steel scrap, pig iron and chemicals are received as in puts by the assessee and castings are manufactured. It is only after such a manufacturi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
