Tribunal grants CENVAT credit in job work case, criticizes lack of legal precedent application

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner(Appeals) order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant regarding entitlement to CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs used in job work manufacturing under Notification No.214/86-CE. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner(Appeals) for not applying established legal precedents and noted that the decision reflected a predetermined mindset, undermining public trust in fair litigation outcomes.

---

---

Issues: Entitlement to CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs used in job work manufacturing under Notification No.214/86-CE.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, manufacturers of non-alloy steel bars, were also undertaking job work for customers under Notification No.214/86-CE. They used duty paid furnace oil and Oxygen during manufacturing and availed CENVAT credit on the inputs.

2. Revenue contended that since goods were cleared without duty payment under the notification, the appellants were not entitled to CENVAT credit. A show-cause notice was issued proposing to deny credit of &8377;54,085/- availed during July 2010 to October 2010.

3. The original adjudicating authority considered the Tribunal's decision in Sterlite Industries Ltd. and Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Jainsons Wool Coombers Ltd., and dropped the proceedings.

4. Revenue appealed to the Commissioner(Appeals), who reversed the order, leading to the present appeal.

5. In the absence of the appellant, the learned Superintendent argued for the Revenue.

6. The Tribunal noted that the issue was decided in favor of the assessee in previous cases, but the Commissioner(Appeals) did not extend the benefit based on a difference in the period involved, without any change in law or the notification's wording. This was deemed unjustified.

7. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner(Appeals) for not applying the established legal precedents due to a mere difference in the period involved, which undermined public trust in fair litigation outcomes. The decision was seen as reflecting a predetermined mindset.

8. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner(Appeals) order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---