TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) of Cenvat Credit rules, 2002. After such jobwork the goods are returned back to the sister concern. The Appellant have been reversing the cenvat credit availed by them on consumables used in such jobwork activity. They were issued show cause notice wherein it was alleged that the Appellant has availed credit of inputs used in jobwork activity. That as the said jobwork is exempted in terms of Notification no. 214/86 hence the Appellant are liable for reversal of 8/10% amount of the value of jobwork goods i.e. exempted goods in terms of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The demands alongwith penalty was confirmed by the impugned order. Hence the present appeal. 2. Ms. Manasi Patil, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory. The only effect of the above procedure adopted by the principal manufacturer and the job worker would be additional paper work. It is basically to avoid such a situation the procedure under Rule 57F(3) has been enacted. As rightly observed by the earlier decision's the mechanical application of Rule 57C which destroys the basic benefit intended to be extended to the assessee should be avoided. If the interpretation adopted by the revenue is upheld, the benefit otherwise intended to be given will get frustrated apart from leading to discriminatory situation, where the manufacturer has himself processed the inputs and in the other case were he is sending it to the job worker. 3. We are also in agreement with the appellant's contention t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same are not chargeable to nil rate. In the present case, we find the job worker could have cleared the goods on payment of duty and manufacturer could have claimed credit of the same. It is only under the special procedure laid down in terms of the Rule 57F(3) that the duty does not get paid at the job worker's end at the time of clearance of the goods, but ultimately gets paid at the manufacturer's end. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the decision rendered in the case of Bajaj Tempo and Jindal Polymers. 3. Apart from the above two decisions, we also note that identical view was taken in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd. v. CCE & C, Mumbai-V [2002 (149) E.L.T. 668 (Tri.) = 2002 (51) RLT 115 (CEGAT-Mum)] & also in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty is paid on the final product. 9. In cases of manufacturers like the Appellants the final product is the tractor. The intermediate product would be parts which are manufactured for being used in the tractor. In such a case the parts would not be the final product. Thus Rule 57C would have no application. The mere fact that the parts are cleared from one factory of the Appellants to another factory of the Appellants would not disentitle the Appellant from claiming benefit of Notification No.217/86-C.E., dated 2nd April, 1986. As stated above, the Notification itself clarifies that the inputs can be used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer." By applying the ratio of the above decision, it ....