9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principal manufacturer and engages job worker for the manufacture of sugar confectionery items. The appellant provides raw materials, and the machinery to the job worker. The appellant pays the job work charges. Thus the job worker manufactures on behalf of appellant. The central excise duty paid by job worker is reimbursed by appellant. The job worker is actually the agent of the appellant and there is no principal to principal relationship. The appellant thus availed the credit of the service tax paid on transportation of raw material to the job worker premises and also on services of transportation of finished goods from the premises of job worker to the appellant depot. The department has denied the credit alleging that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the factory of job worker to the appellant's depot. The issue stands covered in the appellants own case, wherein the Tribunal has disallowed the credit. The discussions made by the Tribunal is as under :- 14. I have considered submissions on both sides. This is a case where the appellant did not do the manufacturing activity in respect of the goods for which Cenvat credit of input services was taken. Neither did the appellant pay excise duty on such goods. Both manufacturing and duty payment were done by job-workers. In such a situation there is no justification to consider the appellant has manufacturer for the purpose of taking Cenvat credit in respect service tax paid on transportation of inputs and final products. In the various de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So I order that the demand in respect of this component may be restricted to the normal period of one year. 18. The case credit taken for transportation from depots to their dealers also, I find that during the relevant time there was considerable confusion about the scope of the expression service used for "clearance of final products from the place of removal" which was used in definition at Rule 2 (l) (ii) of the definition of "input service". In fact the decision of the Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of ABB Ltd is to the effect that such credit was could be allowed upto 01-04-08. However, I follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in this matter. But since this i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
