TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts by the job-workers, cannot be denied to the principal manufactures - credit remains allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/94/2010 - Final Order No. 61763/2017 - Dated:- 11-9-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) Sh. Atul Handa, AR for the Appellant Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per : Devender Singh The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of Railway parts falling under Chapter 86 of Central Excise Tariff. They took the Cenvat Credit of Central Excise Duty paid on Polycarbonate Sheet, which is one of the raw materials for their final products. The inputs w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit of same duty twice. If job worker is not availing exemption benefit under Notification No. 214/86-CE and is acting as independent manufacturer, the assessee should have supplied the raw material on invoice after payment/reversal of duty. He contended that the assessee has taken the double benefit of Cenvat Credit of duty on the Polycarbonate Sheets. He referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of International Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bihar 2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC). He also relied on the following judgments:- 1. CCE, Ahmedabad I Vs. Rohan Dyes Intermediaries Ltd. 2012 (284) ELT 484 (Guj.). 2. Vako Seals Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (290) ELT 420 (Tri. Mumbai). 3. CCE Chennai Vs. Govel Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (312) ELT 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken Cenvat Credit on the inputs contained in the goods received from the Job workers on which duty has been paid, is no longer res integra. In a similar situation, in the case of M/s M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. CCE St, Meerut-I (supra) this Tribunal held as below:- 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant, had been receiving the duty paid inputs and had availed the Cenvat credit in respect of the same. These Cenvat credit availed inputs were, thereafter, sent to their job workers under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 without reversal of the credit for being processed into intermediate products. In this regard Rule 4(5)(a) is reproduced as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no condition that for availing the facility of this Rule, the job worker should avail full duty exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. There is no dispute that intermediate products made out of the inputs supplied by the Appellant were received back from the job workers within the stipulated period. The only point of dispute is as to whether the Appellant would be eligible for Cenvat credit of the duty paid by the job workers on the intermediate products which had been paid on the value equal to the cost of the free supply inputs excluding excise duty (the credit of which had been taken by the Appellant) plus job charges plus value of any other inputs of their own used by the said job workers for manufacture of the intermediate pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of intermediate products made out of the inputs paid duty on value which included the cost of the inputs, the credit of the duty paid on the intermediate product cannot be denied when such intermediate were made out of those inputs, even if the Appellant had earlier taken the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs while receiving the same. In any case, the intermediate products made out of inputs are different from inputs and just because the Appellant have availed Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs, the Cenvat credit of duty, if any paid on the intermediate products by the job workers, cannot be denied to the principal manufactures. 8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly result in additional paper work without any benefit to any of the parties. Because appellant did not do paper work, they are in trouble. Either way, job worker or the appellant would be in trouble. In this case, the job worker has chosen to pay duty to avoid problem for himself. Further, we also notice that whatever credit has been taken is of the actual duty paid to the Government and it is not the case of the Department that credit has been taken of the duty which was not paid by the supplier. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we are not convinced that there is dual benefit. Another submission made was that in the case of M/s. International Auto Ltd., the Hon ble Supreme Court was considering the issue of job work. It was submitted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
