2016 (5) TMI 743

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Adjudicating authority has been upheld. 2. Dr.B.N.Das, (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the issue involved in the present proceedings is whether Appellant, being a job-worker, is eligible to take Cenvat Credit with respect to its own inputs purchased and used in the manufacture of intermediate goods which are further used/cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer. Ld.Consultant argued that their case is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune[2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri.- LB)]. That the above order passed by the Larger Bench has also been upheld by Bombay High Court as reported at 2009 (244) ELT A-89(Bom.). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the First Appellate Authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether Appellant job-worker will be eligible to take credit on inputs directly purchased and used in the manufacture of goods under job-work. Appellant is clearing the goods without payment of duty as per the provisions contained in Notification No.214/86-CE. It has been held by Madras High Court in the case of Commr. of C.Ex., Chennai-IV vs. Kyunsingh Industrial Motherson Ltd.(supra) in its order dated 19.06.2015 that goods cleared as job-work under Notification No.214/86-CE will not come within the scope of expression "exempted final product". Larger Bench in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. vs. Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le and deserves to be quashed and struck down with a specific note of strong disapproval. The respondents simply could not have exercised the powers contained under the statute in such arbitrary exercise and in complete disregard to the pronouncement of this Court particularly reminding the Revenue authorities of the binding effect of decision of Tribunal on the identical question of law. This not only led to multiplicity of proceedings but also speaks of disregard to the direction of this Court rendered in the earlier petition of this very petitioner. Resultantly, petition stands allowed. Both the show cause notices dated 21-8-2012 and 22-1-2013 are quashed and struck down." It appears that still the message has not reached the co....