TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tunities had dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution vide Final Order No. 20825/2026 dated 08.07.2026. The Miscellaneous Application No.ST/20338/2026 is filed for restoration of the above appeal and accordingly, the miscellaneous application for restoration of the service tax appeal No. ST/3180/2011 stands restored. Since, the appeal is of the year 2011, the same is simultaneously taken up for final decision. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts for domestic as well as export markets and also undertake taxable services. During the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant had received service charges for 'sintering process' and claimed exemption from payment of service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 (322) ELT 697 (Mad.) • M/s. Industrial Heat Treaters, M/s. Induction Hardening Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik: 2017 (12) TMI 1210 (CESTAT Mumbai) 4. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. The only issue to be decided is whether the goods cleared by the appellant without payment of service tax availing the benefit of the Notification No.8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 can be treated as exempted goods for denying the benefit of cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Notification is reproduced below: [Notification No. 8/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise" shall not include 'Nil' rate of duty or duty of excise wholly exempt. From the above Notification, it is clear that the goods that have been serviced have to be returned to their client and in turn, uses them to manufacture final products which are ultimately cleared on payment of duty. The fact that BHEL, the client in the appellant's case clears the final products on payment of duty is not in dispute. In an identical set of facts, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Industrial Heat Treaters, M/s. Induction Hardening Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik (supra) observed as follows: "6. We find that it is not in dispute that the activities undertaken by M/s IHT & IHC were in respect of goods on which the princip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot include 'Nil' rate of duty or duty of excise wholly exempt. Thus the exemption under Notification 8/2005-ST is available only where the activity of the job-worker is in respect of goods on which central excise duty is paid by the principal manufacturer. In such case the Rule 3 of the CCR, 2004 is also equally applicable as the job-worker can use the cenvatable input and input services in processing of goods on which the principal manufacturer pays the duty. We therefore hold that M/s IHT & IHC were eligible for the credit of input and input services since the same was utilized in jobwork of goods on which the Principal manufacturer was paying central excise duty. In such case when the Cenvat Credit Rules provides for eli....