2006 (5) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the above cenvat credit for the reason that the differential Central Excise duty covered by the supplementary invoices was paid for the past period by the job worker on account of an offence case registered by the department in contravention of Rule 7 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Original Authority gave a finding that the appellants had paid the duty covered by the supplementary invoices to their suppliers namely the job worker and therefore, the duty paid on the supplementary invoices should not be treated as payment of duty on account of suppression of facts, fraud etc. Therefore, he dropped the proceedings against the appellants. Revenue was aggrieved over the order of the Original Authority, hence, an appeal was filed with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pect of M/s. International Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE -2005 (68) RLT 341 (SC)=2005 (5) RC 292 dated March 17, 2005, which is very much applicable in the correct context to decide whether there was a non-levy or short levy. (c) Job workers are an independent unit and the transaction between the appellant and the job worker is on the principal-to-principal basis and not as a principal to agent basis and as such the dispute between the department 'and the job worker is outside the appellant's knowledge jurisdiction and interest. 5. The learned JDR reiterated the Order-in-Appeal. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The department has invoked Rule 7 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 to disallow the cenvat credit ....