TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants. The MS Ingots manufactured by the job worker is an intermediate product which is used in the manufacture of CTD bars in the factory of the appellants. Such CTD bars were cleared on payment of duty. MS Ingots, the intermediate product, was received back from the job-worker as required under Rule 4 (5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The CI Ingot moulds were not returned in as much as the same was used in the manufacture of MS Ingots repeatedly as mould. Finally, the CI Ingot Moulds after repeated use, became worn out and it was also consumed in the manufacture of MS Ingots by the job-worker treating the same as scrap. Such MS Ingots were also returned to the appellants who used it in the manufacture of finished goods namely CT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Commissioner, Madurai Division has confirmed that the Ingot Moulds were not used in the appellant's factory but sent to the job worker for use. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the rejection of refund in question on the same ground that the moulds were not used in appellant's factory and hence could not be considered as Inputs and accordingly the credit taken was not correct. 5. The Ld. Counsel Shri S. Venkatachalam, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it is clear from the said order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has already allowed the Cenvat credit on merit and only verification has been ordered which has been accepted by the department. He also submits that all the relevant details were furnished ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it is stated by the department in the show cause notice that the appellants are falling under Rule 4 (5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as the appellants declared CI Ingot Moulds as 'input' instead of capital goods even then the appellants are eligible for credit in as much as the rule provides taking of credit subsequently. Further as the moulds are used as input finally and consumed in the manufacture of intermediate goods namely MS Ingots, the appellant is eligible for credit as per Rule 2(i) in as much as input means all goods with certain exceptions. He prayed that the appeal may please be allowed with consequential relief of refund with interest. He relied on the following citations :- 1. Vikram Cement Vs CCE, Indore -2006 E.L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....process is carried on behalf of the principal, credit is not to be denied. There can be no doubt that the spirit behind the CENVAT scheme which is a beneficial one, would be lost, if a statutory benefit is denied by wrong interpretation of certain procedural provisions which permit the facility so long as the item in question are treated either as inputs or as capital goods. Therefore, the denial of credit is clearly an error. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the ingot moulds in question were not used for the manufacturing process in the appellants factory and they were used elsewhere. Even assuming that the appellant had wrongly declared the goods as inputs instead of capital goods because of consumption in the course of manufa....