TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... USTRIES (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in the manufacture of final product, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provision of Rule 57C. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/10137/2014-DB E/10194, 10198/2014-DB E/CO/12292/2014 E/CO/11836/2014 E/10341, 10342, 10343, 103444, 10345, 10346, 10347, 10348, 10349/2014-DB E/EH/10878/2017 E/CO/12294/2014 E/10350/2014-DB E/EH/10877/2018 E/CO/12293, 12295/2014 E/14115/2013-DB - Final Order No. A/ 11274-11287 /2018 - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods right from input stage upto the final product cleared from his factory remained dutiable, therefore, it cannot be said that the goods are exempted, therefore, Rule 6(3) does not apply in the facts of the present case. They submit that as per 3rd Proviso to Rule 3(1), there is specific provision that even for the goods manufactured under Notification 214/86-CE, the Cenvat Credit is admissible. He also placed reliance on the following judgments. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. vs CCE 2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri.-LB) MPI Paper Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE 2016 (336) ELT 86(T) Western India Forging P. Ltd. vs CCE 2014 (36) STR 637 (T) Monarch Catalyst P. Ltd. vs CCE 2013 (291) ELT 478 (T) CCE vs Ballarpur Industries Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any input or input service, as the case may be, used in the manufacture of intermediate products, by a job-worker availing the benefit of exemption specified in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 214/86- Central Excise, dated the 25th March, 1986, published in the Gazette of India vide number G.S.R. 547 (E), dated the 25th March, 1986, and received by the manufacturer for use in, or in relation to, the manufacture of final product, on or after the 10th day of September, 2004. 5. In view of the above explicit provision under the Cenvat Credit Rules even though the goods manufactured under Notification 214/86- CE, the Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs used in the said good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Rule 57C which destroys the basic benefit intended to be extended to the assessee should be avoided. If the interpretation adopted by the revenue is upheld, the benefit otherwise intended to be given will get frustrated apart from leading to discriminatory situation, where the manufacturer has himself processed the inputs and in the other case were he is sending it to the job worker. 3. We are also in agreement with the appellant s contention that Rule 57C debars taking of credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product, if final product is exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to nil rate of duty. As such, to attract the provisions of Rule 57C, two situations in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t paid at the job worker s end at the time of clearance of the goods, but ultimately gets paid at the manufacturer s end. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the decision rendered in the case of Bajaj Tempo and Jindal Polymers. 3. Apart from the above two decisions, we also note that identical view was taken in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd. v. CCE C, Mumbai-V [2002 (149) E.L.T. 668 (Tri.) = 2002 (51) RLT 115 (CEGAT-Mum)] also in the case of CCEx, Jaipur v. Noorani Textiles Mills [2000 (122) E.L.T. 744 (Tribunal)]. 4. In only case of Escorts Ltd. v. CC Ex, Delhi [2003 (160) E.L.T. 623 (Tri-Del.)] while interpreting Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, the Tribunal rejected the appellants claim of Modvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 57C would have no application. The mere fact that the parts are cleared from one factory of the Appellants to another factory of the Appellants would not disentitle the Appellant from claiming benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2nd April, 1986. As stated above, the Notification itself clarifies that the inputs can be used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer. By applying the ratio of the above decision, it becomes clear that Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in the manufacture of final product, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
