TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary, cannot be said to be limited to manufacturing unit owned by Parle Biscuits only. The first principle of interpretation is that the words used in any statute have to be interpreted without adding any words. The term its manufacturing unit has certainly a wider term to include an outside manufacturing unit or the job worker. Another thing which supports my aforesaid view is the Registration Exemption Notification issued in the year 2001 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2001 which provides for exemption from registration of the authorised person to manufacture goods on behalf of principal manufacturer - As per the agreement between appellant and Parle Biscuits, they were receiving the raw materials from them and finished goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise, Thane by which the learned Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and held that ISD credit prior to 31.03.2016 was only to be distributed by the inputs service distributor to its own units providing taxable service or manufacturing goods. 2. The issue involved herein is whether the credit distributed by M/s. Parle Biscuit Private Ltd. i.e. inputs service distributor to the appellant, a contractual manufacturer/job worker, for the period prior to 01.04.2016 is in accordance with Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as prevailing at the relevant time? 3. The facts leading to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and equal penalty. On appeal filled by the appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal by upholding the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the revenue and pursued the case records including the written submissions as well as case laws place on records by the respective sides. According to Revenue since the wordings outsourced manufacturing unit has been added only w.e.f 01.04.2016, therefore before the said period, no outsourced manufacturing unit like the appellant herein were permitted to utilise the Cenvat Credit distributed by input service distributor. In order to appreciate the issue involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its manufacturing units which, in absence of anything contrary, cannot be said to be limited to manufacturing unit owned by Parle Biscuits only. The first principle of interpretation is that the words used in any statute have to be interpreted without adding any words. The term its manufacturing unit has certainly a wider term to include an outside manufacturing unit or the job worker. Another thing which supports my aforesaid view is the Registration Exemption Notification issued in the year 2001 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2001 which provides for exemption from registration of the authorised person to manufacture goods on behalf of principal manufacturer. As per the agreement between appellant and Parle Biscuits, they were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oided, more particularly when the Registration Exemption Notification provides for authorization for manufacture of goods on behalf of the principal manufacturer. There appears to be no good reason as to why CENVAT credits should not be allowed to be distributed to a job worker in the facts and circumstances of the present case. xxx xxx xxx 41. As noticed above, CENVAT is a beneficial scheme with the stated purpose of allowing CENVAT credit of all taxes paid on inputs and services so as to avoid cascading effect of taxes and duties. 42. Thus, even in terms of the provisions of rule 2(m) and rule 7 of the CENVAT Rules, as they stood prior to 01.04.2016, the appellant could distribute CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of CGST CE, allowed the Appeal filed by the appellant a contractual manufacturer following the Larger Bench decision. 6. Following the aforesaid decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal some more decisions have been passed by the Coordinate Benches on the same lines. Some of those decisions are as under:- i) 2023 (5) TMI 1129- CESTAT New Delhi ̶ M/S Ajmer Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Central Excise Jaipur ii) 2022 (10) TMI 875- CESTAT New Delhi ̶ M/s M.B. Industries Pvt. Limited, M/S Parle Biscuits Pvt. Limited, M.V. Joshi (Deceased), Mariamma Iyer, M/s M.B. Food Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Central Excise Indore (M.P) iii) 2022 (10) TMI 1075 - CESTAT New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
