TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty under job work procedure to the principal manufacturer and that semi-finished goods removed by the job worker from its unit to the principal, without payment of duty, would not come within the scope of expression exempted final product used in Rule 57-R (1) equivalent to Rule 6 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal has rightly held that availment of Modvat Credit on capital goods to be job work is in order. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.365 of 2010 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75185/2022 - Dated:- 8-4-2022 - SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI P.ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Roy, Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is paying excise duty only on scrap generated during job work process. The demand was confirmed vide the impugned order. Hence, the present Appeal. 3. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 4. We find that the issue to be decided in the present case is, whether the Appellant is eligible to claim Cenvat credit on capital goods used for the purpose of carrying out intermediate production process on goods supplied by M/s.Tata Motors Limited and removed without payment of excise duty under the procedure prescribed under Notification No.214/86 dated 25/03/1986. 5. We find that the issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the final product. 9. In cases of manufacturers like the appellants the final product is the tractor. The intermediate product would be parts which are manufactured for being used in the tractor. In such a case the parts would not be the final product. Thus 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. 13 . The above principle, laid down by the Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded 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 where 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 respect of the final product should be satisfied. Either the final p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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. 14 . The above order of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal traces the manner in which Modvat credit could be taken by a job worker. The abovesaid decision came to be approved by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. [2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (Bom.)]. 15 . Similar view was taken by this Court in Commissioner v. Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (304) E.L.T. A16 (Mad.)] and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sivaramakrishna Forgings Pvt. Ltd. [2015-TIOL-813-HC-MAD-CX = 2015 (322) E.L.T. 697 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
