2018 (1) TMI 480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r activity of job working. 4. The appellant herein is a job worker of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. The appellant herein was receiving the imported materials as imported by Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Ajanta Pharma Ltd., after discharging the appropriate customs duty, dispatched the inputs to the appellant. The said dispatch of the inputs to the appellant has taken place under two sets of Bills of Entry. One set of Bills of Entry indicated discharge of complete customs duty by Ajanta Pharma Ltd. i.e. basic customs duty (BCD), countervailing duty (CVD) and other duty and the material was transferred on receipt of which the appellant herein availed cenvat credit of the CVD paid. Another set of Bills of Entry were in respect of inputs which were imported and d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lding that the name of the appellant need not be mentioned on the Bill of Entry. The first appellate authority in respect of the second set of Bills of Entry has upheld the order-in-original which denied the cenvat credit on the ground that the conditions of Notification No.73/2006-Cus. dated 10.7.2006 are not fulfilled and hence cenvat credit availed is incorrect. 5. Learned departmental representative supports the impugned order bringing to my notice condition No.(3) of Notification No.73/2006 and submits that there is a violation of the condition inasmuch that the appellant is not registered with the authorities as supporting manufacturer. He also submits that when the conditions of notification are not met, the cenvat credit availed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Pharma Ltd. of inputs which were imported under target plus scheme by filing different Bills of Entry were received and consumed by the appellant for manufacturing of final products which were subsequently transferred to Ajanta Pharma Ltd. who then exported the same as well as cleared the same for home consumption. On this factual matrix, I find that denial of cenvat credit to the appellant being a manufacturer of final products seems to be incorrect. 8. Further I find that the benefit of Notification 73/2006 is for the importer who has complied with the conditions of target plus scheme. The said notification nowhere states that the inputs which are dispatched for manufacturing by the importer to their job workers, cenvat credit needs ....