2026 (2) TMI 1339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Excise Tariff Act 1985. Apart from their own manufacturing they are also involved into job work conversion for other customers. 2. The Appellant was subject to Excise Audit for the period from 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Department had taken the view that the job work done is 'exempted service'. 3. The Audit had pointed out that the Appellant was taking Cenvat credit of common input services used in manufacturing of dutiable excisable goods [cleared on payment of duty] as well as in providing 'exempted service' of manufacturing goods on job work basis and did not maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory use in the exempted job work service. The Audit reported that the Appellant was required to pay an amount....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur was dismissed by Order dated 26.12.2022. Hence the present appeal. 7. The submission of Shri T.R. Rustagi, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the proceedings initiated by the earlier show cause notice dated 18.06.2018 for the previous period culminated in the Final Order No.50625/2022 dated 19.07.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in favour of the appellant following the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the case of Tiara Advertising Vs. Union of India-2019 (10) TMI 27. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the appellant that it was not rendering any service but was manufacturing goods on job work basis for the principal and has been av....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore, there is no basis for the allegation in the show cause notice that the appellant was rendering an exemption service when it was manufacturing dutiable goods. 11. Further we find that the demand has been made under Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the case of Tiara Advertising versus Union of India (2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 474 (Telangana)] that the various options under Rule 6 are options given to the assessee and the Revenue cannot choose one of the options and force it upon the assessee. Even if the assessee is rendering exempted services or manufacturing exempted goods and using common input services no demand can be sustained under Rule 6 (3) as this is on....