Just a moment...
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 CENVAT credit on capital goods used exclusively for job work was admissible, and whether duty and penalty could be sustained on waste and scrap generated in the course of such job work.
Analysis: The appeal turned on whether capital goods employed for job work could be treated as used for exempted final products so as to deny credit. The Tribunal followed binding precedent holding that semi-finished goods removed to the principal manufacturer under the job-work procedure do not amount to exempted final products within the meaning of the relevant credit rules. It was also held that the emergence of waste and scrap during manufacture is only incidental and does not change the character of the job-work clearance for the purpose of credit eligibility. In view of that settled position, the demand of duty and the consequential penalty could not survive.
Conclusion: The credit was admissible and the Revenue's challenge failed; the demand and penalty were not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected by applying the settled rule that job-work clearances of semi-finished goods do not attract denial of capital goods credit merely because waste and scrap arises incidentally during manufacture.
Ratio Decidendi: Credit on capital goods used for job work cannot be denied on the footing that the goods are used for exempted final products, and incidental waste or scrap generated in the process does not justify reversal of such credit or the related demand.