2007 (8) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal's Larger Bench and subsequent decisions including a decision of this Bench. Ld. SDR has preferred to get the appeals heard on a future date, but I am not inclined to accept the suggestion inasmuch as it has not been shown by ld. SDR that the case law cited by ld. Counsel has been appealed against by the department. 2. During the periods of dispute, the appellants had manufactured machine forgings on job-work basis and supplied the goods to the principal manufacturers without payment of duty. The principal manufacturers, after requisite further processing, cleared the goods on payment of duty. The appellants were also manufacturing similar goods on their own, which were cleared on payment of duty to independent buyers. In s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt vide Surya Roshni Ltd. v. Commissioner, 2007 (158) E.L.T. A 273 (S.C.). 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I note that the question whether CENVAT credit on capital goods and inputs used by a job worker for/in the manufacture of final products returned, without of payment of duty, to the principal manufacturer under Rule 57F (3) procedure is admissible to the job worker is already covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Bench in the case of Ucal Machine Tools (supra). In that case, this Bench relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 and the decision of the West Zonal Bench in the case of  Ispat Metallics Ltd.. v. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Bench as under :- "After determining as above, we find the word 'used' in the definition of capital goods will not and cannot be interpreted to mean that it should be actually in use. The potential use by the manufacturer, at a later date would also entitle the credit. The exclusive use as already held, is not contemplated. The plant in this case is capable for use for converting the iron or fines to be used by the appellants at a future date. The word 'used' can denote be intermittent and or use sometime in future; we find that both sides agree that the appellants are a manufacturer of declared final products iron and steel and have the capacity or potential to use iron ore fines also. Therefore, credit as over led cannot be den....