9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants had removed moulds to other manufacturers (other than the job workers) for production of goods without reversing the credit availed on such moulds as required under Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A SCN was issued proposing demand of the irregularly availed credit to the tune of Rs. 6,90,682/- along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel, Ms. Radhika Chandrasekar, opened her arguments by adverting Rule 4 (5) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 04, which was amended with effect from 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 1944. The said Rules are pari materia to Rule 4 (5) (b) of CCR, 2004. That the jurisdictional High Court in the said judgment held that even if raw material are not supplied to the person who manufactures goods on behalf of the assessee, can be considered to be a job worker for the purpose of credit on moulds, jigs and fixtures etc. She also contended that the agreements executed between the appellant and the person who manufactured goods on behalf of appellant would show that such person is a job worker. However, it is submitted by her that the said agreements were not produced before the authorities below. 3. The Ld. AR, Shri B. Balamurugan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that during the proceedings before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put forward the plea that the person to whom the appellant had sent the moulds is the job worker and would be eligible for credit even before amendment dated 27.02.2010. This plea is raised for the first time before the Tribunal. It is the case of the appellant that they would be able to establish the said plea on the basis of the agreements entered with the person to whom the moulds have been sent to manufacture the goods on their behalf. She has also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. (supra). As rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel, the said decision is based on the erstwhile Rule 57 S(8) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said provision appears to be pari mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
