TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e finished goods, manufactured on their own account and also on job work basis. The ingots / billets were received for conversion into TMT Bars on job work basis, under challans in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the finished goods were sent back to the principal manufacturer after job work without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 214/86 dated 25.03.1986 1.3 The Appellant was issued with a Show Cause Notice No. 18/2012 dated 29.06.2012, proposing to demand CENVAT credit taken on that quantity of Furnace Oil used in the manufacture of job worked goods amounting to Rs.45,03,502/- for the period from June 2011 to December 2011 along with interest and also for imposition of penalty. 1.4 After due process of law, the above Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 02/2013 dated 21.03.2013 confirming the demand for Rs.45,03,502/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs.45,03,502/- on the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 21.03.2013 vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 01.12.2014 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnace oil used in the manufacture of job work goods for heating the M S Ingots/Billets was for and on behalf of the Principal manufacturer and these are final products and only the onus of payment of duty is cast on the Principal manufacturer. Merely because duty liability is discharged by the principal manufacturer in respect of such job worked goods, the said goods manufactured by the Appellant would not cease to be the final products of the appellant. 3.3 Further, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that in the Show Cause Notice the said demand was proposed on the ground that CENVAT credit was availed of the duty paid for entire quantity of furnace oil received by the appellant and the furnace oil stored in the tanker was used in the manufacture of both dutiable goods as well as exempted TMT bars and that the exempted goods were those goods manufactured under job work scheme by virtue of Notification No.214/86- CE. But, in the impugned order, the demand was confirmed on the ground that the credit taken and used by the appellant on the quantity of furnace oil used in the manufacture of job work goods was inadmissible as the furnace oil used by the appellant for manufacture of rol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to become eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the Furnace Oil which was used both for their own manufactured goods and also for job worked goods, CENVAT credit availed is liable to be recovered. 5. We have heard both the sides and considered the evidences available on record. 6. The only issue that is required to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant is eligible for availing CENVAT Credit on Furnace Oil used for manufacture of job worked goods. Any manufacturer is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used in the manufacture of excisable goods and for provision of taxable output services subject to certain conditions and restrictions in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In case of job work, the principal manufacturer can transfer inputs, raw materials or even semi-finished goods to the job worker for carrying any process or operation to make them fully finished and the duty liability has to be discharged on such manufactured goods either by the principal manufacturer or by the job worker. 7. As per Rule 2(n) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and explanation in the Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, 'Job Work', means processi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit availed on furnace oil used by them for job work basis cannot be allowed since the same are not used for final products of the appellants. This being so, we find merit in the Ld. Advocate's contention that adjudicating authorities have gone beyond the scope of the SCNs. The adjudicating authorities have surely changed the goal post to a proposition which was not at all presented in the SCNs. On this very ground, we find that impugned orders will suffer from infirmity of having gone beyond the scope of SCNs and applying the ratio laid down in a number of cases, for example in Commissioner Vs Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (8) GSTL J143 (SC), CCE Nagpur Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. - 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC), H.S. Nataraj Vs CCE Bangalore - 2016 (338) ELT 674 (Kar.), Tube Products of India Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai - 2007 (216) ELT 245 (Tri.-Chennai) and in Varsed Detective & Security Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur - 2017 (5) GSTL 327 (Tri.-Del.), we find that impugned orders cannot be sustained. 8. Even on merits, we find that the matter is amply covered by the Tribunal in Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd. Vs CCE Bangalore - 2015 (318) ELT 340 (Tri.-Bang.) where inter alia, it was ....