TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input or capital goods to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning or any other purpose is governed by Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, by following the same, the impugned orders are set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - E/2956/2012, E/25336/2013, E/25338/2013-SM - Final Order Nos. 20679 - 20681/ 2016 - Dated:- 30-8-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. K. Ezhilmathi, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present three appeals are directed against the impugned orders dated 08.10.2012, 20.12.2012 and 18.01.2012 vide which the Commissioner has upheld the Orders-in-Origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cenvat credit taken inputs under delivery challans. While processing the inputs, the job workers have also used their own materials and returned the processed goods under cover of invoice issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules 2002 to the appellant. Since the job workers have paid the excise duty on the processed goods, the appellant took cenvat credit of the same. But the departmental auditors who audited the appellant s records on 26.05.2010 objected on the ground that the entire credit on the inputs should have been reversed under Rule 3(5) and the credits taken have resulted in double benefit to the appellant. Thereafter show-cause notices were issued which culminated into the recovery of cenvat credit irregularly taken on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no dispute about the receipt of goods by the appellant within the prescribed time and therefore Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 are applicable and not Rule 3(5). In support of his submission, he relied upon the following case-laws: a) International Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bihar 2005 (183) E.L.T. 239 (S.C) b) Southern Lubrication (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2012-TIOL-642-CESTAT-BANG. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Here it is pertinent to mention the bare provisions of Rule 3(5) and Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Rule 3(5) when inputs or capital goods, on which cenvat credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory, or premises of the provider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are received back in his factory or in the premises of the provider of output service. 5. After considering the provisions of Rule 3(5) and 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of Southern Lubrication (P) Ltd. cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that appellant s case is squarely covered by the said decision wherein it has been held that the removal of input or capital goods to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning or any other purpose is governed by Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore following the ratio of the above case, I am of the view that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside and I s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
