TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clear that the processed material of the Bhadreshwar Unit has been sent back to the Howrah unit who used it in the manufacture of the final product and cleared on payment of duty. It cannot be said that the Bhadreshwar Unit is exclusively engaged in manufacture of the exempted goods - Rule 7(b) of CCR debarred the distribution of credit of Service Tax attributable to Service Tax used by one or more units exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed. Rule 4(5)(a) has not given any exemption from the levy of duty on the job-worked material. Therefore, the findings of the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/75 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004. On adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority denied the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 24,26,886/- and ordered for recovery of the same along with interest and imposed equal penalty in terms of Rule 15(2) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority also appropriated the amount of ₹ 14,75,166/- as paid by the appellants. On appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellants and upheld the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the Bhadreswar unit is on a lease-hold premises on rental basis and the bills for lease rent is paid by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilized in a unit which is manufacturing dutiable goods, the said Rule will have no application. 3. In support of his submissions the ld.Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-I v. Ecof Industries Pvt.Ltd. [2013 (29) S.T.R. 107 (Kar.)] and Tribunal's decision in the case of Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt.Ltd. v. C.C.E., Cus. S.T., Bangalore-LTU [2016 (42) S.T.R. 28 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 4. The ld.AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue drew the attention of the Bench to para 5.7 of the Adjudication Order, which is reproduced below:- 5.7 From the combined reading of the Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004 and the Service Tax exemption Notification No.8/2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticularly drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the adjudication order. 8. I find that the appellant's Howrah unit is engaged in the manufacture of Forged Alloy and Non-Alloy Steel. They have sent the raw material to their Bhadreshwar unit taken on lease rent basis for job-work of steel ingots under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is seen that Rule 4(5)(a) provides that Cenvat Credit on inputs shall be allowed even if any inputs as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker and after re-processing therefrom are received back by the manufacturer within the stipulated period. Thus, it is clear that the processed material of the Bhadreshwar Unit has been sent back to the Howrah u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
