TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in applying Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 without first determining as to whether Rule 3(4)(b) read with Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, 2004 stands attracted or not?" 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Y.N. Ravani for the appellant, and learned senior counsel Mr. Deven Parikh assisted by learned advocate Mr. Nirav Shah. 3. The facts in the background are that the respondent assessee was engaged in the manufacture of dyes and dyes intermediates. In course of search of the factory premises of the assessee undertaken by the Central Excise Officers on 4th March 2008, it was found that the assessee had imported raw materials like Beta Napth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.05.2009 disallowed the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.21,78,003/-. He ordered reversal and recovery of the same with interest. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by his order dated 7.10.2009 upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal, bringing the Department before this Court by way of the present appeal. 4. It was the case of the Department that the inputs were not sent for job work. The parties to whom they were sent had paid duty on the manufacture, which should have been reversed by the appellant. On the other hand, it was the submission of the assessee that no revenue loss had actually occurred, inasmuch as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s mentioned therein. 4.2 The Tribunal while allowing the appeal, relied on a decision of the Apex Court in M/s. International Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bihar [2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC)]. In that case, the transaction in which the manufacturer of the final product, the TELCO, who had removed inputs to a place outside the factory for the purpose of manufacture of intermediate products namely `the floor plate assemblies', so that they are returned to the factory for use in the manufacture of final product, namely excavators. The Supreme Court commenting on the order of the Tribunal observed: "The Tribunal appears to have been confused between the manufacture of the final product, namely, excavators and the manufacture of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of which modvat credit could be taken at the time of clearance of the final product and thus, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of the Revenue that the respondents should have reversed the cenvat credit taken before sending the goods to the job worker since the job worker had not followed the procedure of job work. It may not be out of place to mention here that that what was earlier provision contained in Rule 57F[2][b] is exactly the present provision of Rule 4[5A] of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." 5.1 It was further observed:- "We do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Ravani that the job workers cannot prefer to pay excise duty inspite of having exemption notifica....