Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (5) TMI 234

the inputs which is not permitted by the law - Revenue felt that the job worker should have followed the procedure under N/N. 214 of 86-CE and availed exemption - Held that: - the appellants paid central excise duty, both at the stage of procuring rough forgings and also at the time of receiving back the machined forgings from the job worker. When the duty has been paid the entitlement for credit follows - similar issue decided in the case of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus CCE & ST. - Meerut-I [2014 (3) TMI 203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty Exemption under N/N. 214/86-CE. This exemption being a conditional ex .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

opting the value which is equivalent to cost of rough forging plus processing charges. On receipt of such duty paid intermediate products, the main appellant availed the credit of such duty. The Revenue objected to such credit on the ground that the appellants attempting to take double benefits on the inputs which is not permitted by the law. The Revenue contended that the job worker should have followed the provisions of either Rule 16A of Central Excise Rules, 2002 or Notification No. 214 of 86-CE, for such manufacture and clearance of intermediate goods. Proceedings were initiated against the main appellant as well as the second appellant, who is a job worker in this case, to demand and recover cenvat credit of ₹ 56,66,702 and also .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

-CE by the job worker cannot be the reason for any denial of credit. The said decision has been followed by various other subsequent decisions of the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the original authority. He submitted there were references to the proceedings before the lower authorities regarding non-fulfillment of certain conditions under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the appellant. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The proceedings against the appellants are for denying the credit of duty paid on finished forgings received by them from the job worker on payment of duty. We note that the main ground of denial is there is a double benefit to the appellant. One is at the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job workers. If the job worker decides to pay the duty on the intermediate products manufactured by him on job-work basis for the principal manufacturer, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.), they would be required to pay duty on the cost of input plus job charges including the cost of their own inputs used in manufacture. This is what the job workers have done in the present case. Moreover when the inputs, in question, have suffered twice, first in the hand of input manufacturers from whom the Appellant had procured the inputs and second time in the hand of j .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||