TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia Industries Pvt. Ltd. (M/s GEI), a registered dealer. The inputs were sent directly by M/s GEI to M/s GSC Toughened Glass Pvt. Ltd., Noida (M/s GSC) on the advice of the respondents. The respondents prepared job work challan in the name of M/s GSC as per Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules. M/s GSC cleared Toughened Glass to the respondents by paying duty on the entire value of the goods including the value of the inputs. When the respondents received these goods from M/s GSC, they took the credit of duty paid by M/s GSC and the credit so taken by the respondents included the duty on the inputs. Revenue felt that the respondents had wrongly taken Cenvat Credit on the strength of invoices of M/s GSC to the extent duty charged on the value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents submitted that there was no loss to the Revenue as on both the times the duty has been paid separately. He argued that the goods had been sent under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and it was not mandatory that job worker should avail the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE, as it was a conditional notification. He relied on the following case laws:- 1. M/s Thermax Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I 2015 (326) ELT 369 (Tri. Ahmd.). 2. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. CCE & St, Meerut-I 2014 (300) ELT 442 (Tri.-Del) 3. Aries Dyechem Industries Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2010 (257) ELT 113 (Tri. Ahmd.) 4. CCE, Ahmedabad-I Vs. Rohan Dyes & Intermediated Ltd. 2012 (284) ELT 484 (Guj.) affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. 5. CCE,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvat credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job-worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning Tor for the manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture of final products or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the manufacturer or provider of output service taking the Cenvat credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eight days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received back within one hundred eight days, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall pay an amount equ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... product paid by the job workers on the ground that on the same inputs, Cenvat credit cannot be availed twice - first at the time of receipt the inputs by the Appellant in their factory from the input manufacturers and second time in respect of duty paid on intermediates goods made out of input supplied by Appellant upon receiving the same from the job workers. Logically, the ground on which the Cenvat credit is sought to be denied is totally incorrect. There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty Exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job workers. If the job worker....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Thermax Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I (supra). I also find that the same issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Aries Dyechem Industries Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra) and this Tribunal took the view that there was no dual benefit. In this context, Para 12 of the said judgment is pertinent and is reproduced below:- "12. Even though, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we need not discuss the contention raised by the learned SDR, we consider it appropriate to deal with this aspect also. It was the contention of the learned SDR that the appellants have derived dual benefit. We are not able to see any dual benefit in this case. Based on the several matters which have come up before ....