TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in regard to the inputs removed as such when sent to the job workers. The period of dispute is September, 2008 to March, 2009. The job worker received the goods in partially processed conditions for further processing/assembled with their own product on raw basis. The said inputs were removed from the factory premises of the appellants under cover of annexure challan as stipulated under Rule 57F of the erstwhile rules. It is claimed that the inputs were received back within 180 days. At the time of removal of assembled products, the job worker M/s. Synthetic Moulders Limited (SML) issued Central Excise invoices. Show Cause Notice alleged that the assessee availed CENVAT Credit on finished new base assembly, base block assembly etc. as input....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 2016 (42) S.T.R. 634 (Cal.) 3. The Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Lower Authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that the appellant strongly contested on merit as well as limitation. It is contended that it is a case of Revenue Neutrality. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant had not disclosed the material fact to the Department with intent to evade payment of duty. The Tribunal in the case of Contech Instruments Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur [2010 (262) ELT 671 (Tri.-Mumbai) held that there was no loss of Department in the case of Revenue Neutrality. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: ......9. I find that the Show Cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Department, the eligibility of the Appellants to the Cenvat credit on such inputs cannot be disputed. In the present case, M/s. Leo Circuit Boards Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Hermes Electronics were paying duty on the value attributable to the PCBs cleared by them after fitting the components supplied by the Appellants. Thus the Cenvat credit on the inputs sent to the two units as well as the Cenvat on the duty paid by the two units was available to the Appellants, as the Assembled PCBs were received by the Appellants for the manufacture of the Electronic Balances. The following decisions clearly lay down that the job worker can pay duty on the processed goods though he could have returned such goods to the principal manufacturer without payment ....