2019 (10) TMI 1597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... received at the job worker's place. 2. Shri S.J. Vyas, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that though the service was used by the job workers but the same was used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products which was partly processed at the job-worker's premises. He also submits that both, job workers and appellant belongs to same Company. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kkalpana Industries (India) Limited vs. CCE & ST, Silvasa vide order No. A/11505-11509/2019 dated 30.07.2019. 3. Shri S.N. Gohil, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there is no payment of duty on excisable goods manufactured by the job workers. He submits that since all the services, even though used by the job worker, are for manufacture of appellant's goods, therefore, they are entitled for the Cenvat Credit. He placed reliance on the decisions of CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CCE, MumbaiII vs. Larsen & Tuobro Ltd. 2017(10) TMI 651- CESTAT Mumbai. 3. Shri K.J. Kinariwala, Ld. Asst. Commr. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the facts of the case are not much in dispute. In as much as the entire inputs are sent by appellant to their own job worker unit, it is exclusiv....