2018 (2) TMI 1308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n their capacity as job worker. However, with effect from 1.1.2007, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., the raw material suppliers changed their pattern of supply of components from job work to outright sales. Consequently, the goods supplied by them for further manufacturing by the appellant were sold to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. on the basis of sales invoice showing the excise duty components. In the light of changed pattern of supply of components, for undertaking manufacturing activity done by M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., the appellant also changed their system of supply of their components to their job workers. Accordingly, with effect from 1.2.2007, the appellants sent their components for further manufacturing activity to their work....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Murugappan submitted that the appellant vide reply dated 6.10.2008 submitted that the application though filed under section 11B is for restoration of CENVAT credit and not for refund as such. The goods were removed and CENVAT taken under Rule 4(5)(a) was reversed. Since sales invoices were issued in place of such challans, the appellant discharged the excise duty as per the sales invoices. The two job workers namely M/s. Technical Stampings Automotive Ltd. and M/s.Neel Industries Ltd. did not accept the changed pattern. The duty paid in respect of these two job workers has been discharged by the appellant. These job workers returned the goods on challans. Therefore, the appellant ought to have been allowed to take recredit of the credit th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t / held by those job workers during the period February 2007 and March 2007. While filing refund claim, they ought to have preferred their claim within the time limit prescribed under section 11B of Act ibid. Once the appellant discharged duty on the stock of raw materials held by the job worker, they cannot claim recredit on the goods returned by job worker. Hence the claim of the appellant to allow recredit does not merit consideration and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. From the narrations above, it can be seen that the issue has arisen only with respect to the supply of raw materials to two job work manufacturers namely M/s. Technical Stampings Automotive Ltd. and M/s.Neel Industries Ltd. The appellant revised the p....