Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (8) TMI 928

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of Rule 57(F)(4) it could be required to pay duty in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) because the conditions of Rule 57(F)(4) were stringent compared to the conditions of Rule 4(5)(a) inasmuch as Rule 57(F)(4) categorically required the principal manufacturer to use the goods received from the job worker for further use in the manufacture of the final product or removing after payment of duty for home consumption or removing the same without payment of duty for export while Rule 4(5)(a) does not say so expressly though it is implicit therein. Thus, we are of the view that for the purpose of dutibility at the hands of the job worker, the provisions of Rule 57(F)(4) are essentially parimateria the Provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther than its sister unit (Vishakhapatnam Unit). (d). The issue in no longer under dispute having been settled in favour of the appellant vide judgment of CESTAT in the case of Mukesh Industries Ltd. vs CCE, 2009 (248) ELT 203 (T.) and Dhana Singh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, 2015 (326) ELT 609 (T). (e). Ld. Advocate also cited the Board s Circular No. 306/22/97-Cx dated 20/03/1997 based on which the judgment which was relied upon by CESTAT in the case of M Tex. D.K. Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, 2001 (136) ELT 73 (T) to arrive at finding that in terms of provisions of Rule 57(F)(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, the job worker was not required to pay duty even if the job work amounted to manufacture and that judgment wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds it was required to pay duty in the absence of any exemption with regard thereto deserves to be carefully considered. In this regard, we find that Rule 4(5)(A) states as under: (5) (a) The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning 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 eighty days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 20.03.1997 while clarifying the issue of availability of Modvat Credit on input used by job worker observed as under: Instances have come to the notice of the Board where job workers have availed the credit on inputs used for job-work done by them under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under 2. the provisions of Rule 57F(4), a manufacturer can get the job work done on his inputs or on partially processed inputs in terms of the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In such cases duty liability is required to be discharged by the manufacturer and not by the job workers. Accordingly job worker is not eligible to avail credit in such cases. It is seen from the aforesaid circular .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty for export while Rule 4(5)(a) does not say so expressly though it is implicit therein. Thus, we are of the view that for the purpose of dutibility at the hands of the job worker, the provisions of Rule 57(F)(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 are essentially parimateria the Provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Indeed vide judgments in the case Mukesh Industries Ltd. vs CCE, (supra) CESTAT essentially held as under: Duty liability - Job worker - Respondents receiving grey MMF and knitted or crocheted fabrics from principal manufacturer under the cover of challans issued under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and after completion of job work the goods stand returned to the principal manufacturer - Rule 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates