Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether credit of duty paid by the job worker was admissible when the job worker had not availed the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE and had paid duty on the job-worked goods.
Analysis: The duty-paying invoices showed that the job worker had cleared the intermediate product on payment of excise duty. The absence of an undertaking fulfilling the conditions of Notification No. 214/86-CE supported the position that the notification had not been availed. Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was relied upon to recognise that a job worker cannot be compelled to take exemption. The notification was treated as providing an option to shift duty liability, not as mandatorily denying duty payment by the job worker. Since the duty was actually paid, the principal manufacturer was entitled to avail credit.
Conclusion: The credit was admissible and the demand for reversal was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Notification No. 214/86-CE is optional in nature and does not prevent a job worker from paying duty; where duty is validly paid, the principal manufacturer may take credit of that duty.