Cce, Jaipur I vs M/S Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. ...

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 86 (MPM) CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 20/03/2006 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Jaipur.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :

the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :

the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for

publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :

copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :

Department Authorities?

CCE, Jaipur  I Appellant

Versus

M/s Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent

Appearance

Shri S. Nanthuk, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR)  for the appellant.

None  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52970/2015 Dated : 18/09/2015

Per. B. Ravichandran :-

The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 20/03/2006 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent are engaged in the manufacture of steel wire/galvanized steel wire of non-alloys steel liable to Central Excise duty. They undertake this on job work basis in terms of Notification No. 214/1986-CE dated 25/03/1986. Since, the respondent were clearing goods without payment of duty in terms of the said notification proceedings were initiated against them to disallow the Cenvat credit on such quantity of inputs which was used in the manufacture of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Original Authority ordered the recovery of Cenvat credit and imposed penalty. On appeal the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

2. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue stated that as per Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods. It was contended that although the respondent is clearing the exempted goods under Notification No. 214/1986-CE on job work basis they are not entitled for credit in respect of fuel used for manufacture of exempted goods as they are not manufacturers of final products. The learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal. None appeared for the respondent. We find that the Revenues appeal is to deny Cenvat credit on fuel used by the job worker in the manufacture of excisable products which are cleared to the principal without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 214/1986-CE. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the various case laws categorically held that the removal of goods manufactured by a job worker under a specific notification cannot be treated as clearance of exempted goods or clearance of goods without payment of duty as the duty is ultimately paid by the principal manufacturer on such goods. He relied on various case laws in this regard, more specifically on the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 (Tri.  LB). We find that the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal is applicable to the facts of the present case. Tribunal in the case of Gopal Iron & Steel Co. (Gujarat) Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2009 (247) E.L.T. 640 (Tri.  Ahmd.) held that credit on furnace oil used by the job worker cannot be denied. Considering the above position and decision of this Tribunal in various cases we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

2