TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whom the appellant has sent the moulds is a job worker or not requires verification - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/42346/2015 - Final Order No. 43014/2017 - Dated:- 24-11-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) Ms. Radhika Chandrasekar, Advocate for the appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC ( AR ) for the respondent ORDER The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods viz., wiper motor, link assembly, fan motor etc., and are registered with the Central Excise Department. They are availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as well as service tax paid on input services. On verification of records, it was found that during the period 20/12/2007 to 26/02/2010 the appellants ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore the credit is not eligible on the moulds removed as such from the appellant's factory to the independent manufacturer prior to 27.02.2010. She argued that even if raw materials are not supplied to a person who manufactures goods on behalf of the appellant, the said person would be a job worker for the manufacture of goods on behalf of the appellant. To canvas this argument, she relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CCE, Pondicherry Vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. - 2015 (316) ELT 209 (Mad.). She submitted that in the said decision, the facts are identical and the difference being only that the said judgment deals with the erstwhile provision of Rule 57S (8) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case, the appellants have not sent any raw materials to the person to whom the moulds were sent and therefore such person is not a job worker and therefore appellants are not eligible for the credit. It is also stressed by the Ld. AR that the appellants have not produced any documents to show that the person to whom the appellants have sent the moulds is a job worker. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main contention put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants is that the moulds have been sent to a job worker and not to other manufacturer as alleged by the department. It is seen from the records that the appellants had initially taken the plea that the amendment introduced on 27.02.2010 had retrospective effect. They had not put fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
