TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Rules. The respondent, in addition to manufacture of woolen tops and woolen yarn for themselves, also manufacture the same goods for principal manufacturers on job work basis out of the semi-processed material received by them under job work challans. The period of dispute in this case is from April'01 to Jan.'04. The respondent were using dutiable inputs like lubricants, soaps, chemicals etc. for manufacture of woolen tops/woolen yarn in respect of which Cenvat credit was taken. These cenvated inputs were being used for woolen tops/woolen yarn manufactured for themselves as well as for principal manufacturers on job work basis, which were being cleared without payment of duty to principal manufacturers. The Department was of the view th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 would be available to the respondent. 1.2 Against the above order of the Asstt. Commissioner, the Department filed a review appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the period of dispute from April'01 to Jan.'04 can be divided in two parts - from 1-4-03 to 31-01-04, when Rule 12B was there alongwith proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules and the period from April'01 to March'03 when the Rule 12B of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 and the corresponding proviso in sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 was not there. For the later period i.e. from the period 1-4-03 to Jan.'04, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B were in force for period from 1-4-03 to 9-7-04, the benefit of the same would not be admissible to the respondent for the period prior to 1-4-03 and in respect of the period prior to 1-4-03, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (supra) is not correct as the said judgment is in respect of Rule 57C of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. The Respondent have filed a cross objection No. E/CO/169/08-SM in respect of this appeal. 3. Heard both the sides. 3.1 Shri S.K. Bhaskar, learned DR assailed the portion of the impugned order upholding the dropping of the demand for the period from April'01 to March'03 and pleaded that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ger Bench judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE (supra) has held that the job worker who received goods from his principal manufacturer for manufacture of goods on job work and return is entitled to take Cenvat credit of duty in respect of the other inputs used by him even if the job work goods were cleared without payment of duty; that the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries (supra) has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgment reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (Bom.) and that the Tribunal's judgment in case of Tata Motors Ltd. v. CCE (supra) has been set aside by Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgment reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. 337 (Bom.) wherein Hon'ble High Court held that all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cturers were clearing the finished goods on payment of duty. The point of dispute is as to whether in such a situation, the respondent as job worker were eligible for Cenvat credit of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods on job work, which were cleared without payment of duty to the principal manufacturers who, in turn, cleared the same on payment of duty. I find that this issue stands settled against the Revenue by Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune (supra) which has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgment reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. A89. Hon'ble Bombay High Court while upholding the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has observed that the Tribunal'....