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 the appellant, having carried out job work under the prescribed procedure, was entitled to the benefit of the job work scheme so that duty was not recoverable on the full value of the goods including the value of inputs supplied by the principal manufacturer.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the appellant had followed the procedure contemplated for job work under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. If the intermediate goods were manufactured for another manufacturer who used them in the final product, the job worker could claim the benefit of the scheme notwithstanding that duty had been paid by mistake. On that footing, the differential duty computed by including the value of supplied materials would not survive. As the lower authorities had not examined the factual basis of this claim, verification was necessary.
Conclusion: The demand was not finally upheld on this issue and the matter was remanded for verification and re-quantification.
Ratio Decidendi: A job worker following the prescribed job work procedure is entitled to the benefit of the scheme, and differential duty based on inclusion of supplied material value cannot be sustained without factual verification of compliance.