Tribunal rules against 10% value demand on jobwork goods under Cenvat Credit Rules

The Tribunal held that the demand for 10% of the value of goods manufactured on a jobwork basis under Notification No. 214/86, based on Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on inputs used by the jobworker for manufacturing goods on a jobwork basis under Notification No. 214/86-CE.
2. Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 to the goods manufactured on a jobwork basis.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on inputs used by the jobworker for manufacturing goods on a jobwork basis under Notification No. 214/86-CE:

The primary issue is whether the CENVAT credit on inputs used by the jobworker for manufacturing goods on a jobwork basis is admissible under Notification No. 214/86-CE. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT amounting to 10% of the value of the goods manufactured and cleared under Notification No. 214/86 on the ground that these goods are exempt from excise duty. Consequently, the appellant was deemed liable to pay 10% of the value of such exempted goods in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.

The appellant argued that the principal manufacturer undertakes to discharge the excise duty on the final product, which includes the intermediary goods manufactured by the appellant. Therefore, there is no exemption from payment of duty as the final product is cleared on payment of duty. The appellant cited several judgments, including Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, CCE v. Kapsons Inds. Ltd., CCE vs. Jainsons Wool Chambers Ltd., Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, CCE v. Happy Forging Ltd., and Welspunn India Ltd. v. CCE, which supported the admissibility of CENVAT credit for inputs used in jobwork.

2. Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 to the goods manufactured on a jobwork basis:

The Tribunal found that the demand was raised for an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the goods manufactured by the appellant on a jobwork basis, which was returned without payment of duty to the principal supplier of raw material under Notification No. 214/86. The condition of Notification 214/86 stipulates that the principal supplier of raw material must discharge the excise duty either on the jobwork goods or on the final product in which the jobwork intermediary goods are used. This provision is intended to avoid double payment of duty.

The Tribunal noted that the goods manufactured on a jobwork basis are not exempt from excise duty, as the duty is ultimately paid on the final product. Therefore, Rule 6(3)(b), which applies to the clearance of exempted goods, does not apply to goods manufactured on a jobwork basis under Notification 214/86.

The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Kapsons Inds. Ltd., Jainsons Wool Chambers Ltd., Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., Happy Forging Ltd., and Welspunn India Ltd., which consistently held that CENVAT credit is admissible for inputs used in the manufacture of goods on a jobwork basis and that Rule 6(3)(b) does not apply in such cases.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the demand raised for an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of jobwork goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) is not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law. The operative part of the judgment was pronounced in court.

---