TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which are sent to their principal manufacturer under Notification No. 214/86 CE dated 25.3.1986. The finding portion of the commissioner (A) is reproduced herein below : Findings: I have gone through the case records, written submission made in the grounds of appeal and also the oral submission made at the time of personal hearing. The issue to be decided in this matter is whether the goods manufactured on job work basis by the appellant, under Notification No.214/86 CE dated 25.03.1986, are exempted goods for the purpose of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find that the appellants have availed Cenvat credit in respect of common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as job work goods. The job work was undertaken un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods which are further sent to their principal manufacturer under Notification No. 214/86. In view of above discussions, I set aside the OIO No.57/2005 dated 14.7.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajajinagar division, and allow the appeal filed by M/s. South India Wire Products Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. 2. We heard both sides in the matter. We notice that the issue is fully settled in assessee's favour in terms of Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of M/s. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - 2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri.-LB). The finding portion of this judgment in Para 3-6 are reproduced herein below. 3. We are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not be covered by the said expression inasmuch as the 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. 3.1 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)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to Nil rate of duty, credit would still be allowed so long as 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 s....