TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iwadi unit does not have the facility for preparation of compounded rubber, it sent cenvat credit availed inputs to Chopanki Unit under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules for job work for preparing the compounded rubber. Sometimes, when some inputs sent by the Bhiwadi Unit were short, the Chopanki unit used its own cenvat credit availed inputs and to the extent the Chopanki Unit used its own cenvated input in the job work for Bhiwadi unit, it raised invoices on the Bhiwadi unit. According to the appellant, it is purely for the purpose of accounting and as such, there was no physical removal of the inputs from the Chopanki Unit to Bhiwadi Unit as those inputs had been used only in the job work for the Bhiwadi Unit. Sometimes, in such ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er had been cleared without payment of duty under Notification no.214/86-CE, in some cases, the Chopanki Unit raised invoices on the Bhiwadi Unit for use of its own cenvat credit availed inputs and paid an amount equal to the cenvat credit under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and on the basis of these invoices, Bhiwadi Unit took cenvat credit. The department applying First In and First Out principle alleging that in the case where the duty free synthetic rubber had been used for the job work, no reversal of credit was required under Rule 3(5) and hence, in such cases, on the basis of the invoices issued by Chopanki Unit, the Bhiwadi Unit cannot avail cenvat credit. The cenvat credit demand of Rs. 2.67 crores against Bhiwadi Unit is on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in respect of stay applications. 3. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate and Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate, ld. Counsels for the appellants, pleaded that so far as the cenvat credit demand of Rs. 9.24 crores against the Chopanki Unit is concerned, this demand is not sustainable as the demand is in respect of the inputs belonging to Chopanki Unit used by them for job work in the manufacture of compounded rubber for Bhiwadi Unit, that since there was no physical movement of the inputs, no reversal of the cenvat credit is required, that in this regard, they rely upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the cases of H.V. Axles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2012 (279) ELT 95 (Tribunal-Kolkata) , DCM Engineering Products Vs. CCE, Jalandhar - 2010 (251) ELT 91 (T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal, that as regards the cenvat credit demand of Rs. 2.76 crores against M/s. Bhiwadi Unit, this demand is in respect of the Synthetic rubber used by Chopanki Unit for the job work of manufacture of compounded rubber for the Bhiwadi Unit, that the department's allegation is that since in this job work, the duty free synthetic rubber had also been used in respect of which no cenvat credit had been taken, on use of that synthetic rubber in the job work when the Chopanki Unit raised invoices on the Bhiwadi Unit, no duty was required to be paid in terms of Rule 3(5) and the Bhiwadi Unit could not take the cenvat credit, that it is well settled law that for considering the cenvat credit in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ards Shri Pawan Batra, DGM is concerned, we are of the prima facie view that in the circumstances of this case, there does not appeal to be any justification for imposition of penalty on him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty by Shri Pawan Batra, DGM for hearing of their appeal is waived. Thus, so far as the stay application filed by Shri Pawan Batra, the same is allowed and so far as the stay application no. E/Stay/53108/2004 filed by the appellant company in respect of the Chopanki Unit is concerned, the amount of Rs. 2.01 crores already paid is sufficient for hearing of their appeal and the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of demand, interest and penalty is wa....