Excise & Customs : In absence of any definition of 'job-worker' in erstwhile Modvat Rules (Central Excise Rules, 1944), definition of job-worker under a particular exemption notification cannot be used for purposes of Modvat rules
Excise & Customs : Where assessee had obtained permission for clearance of moulds, etc. to various parties for use in manufacture of parts to be supplied to it, no reversal of credit was warranted as per Rule 57S ibid
■■■
[] (Madras)
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondichery Commissionerate
v.
Whirlpool of India Ltd.*
R. SUDHAKAR AND G.M. AKBAR ALI, JJ.
CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NOS. 2396,2682, 2877 & 3544 OF 2005
AUGUST 28, 2014
Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rules 2(n), 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - CENVAT Credit - Job-work - Assessee sent moulds and dies without payment of duty to job-workers for manufacture of parts of machines, after taking requisite permission under Rule 57S - Job-workers were manufacturing parts using raw materials procured from outside and were paying duty thereon - Revenue argued that since so-called job-workers were procuring raw material from market and not getting raw material from assessee, job-workers were actually 'principal manufacturer' and therefore, assessee was liable to reverse credit on moulds and dies at time of sending them - HELD : In absence of any definition of 'job-worker' in erstwhile Modvat Rules (Central Excise Rules, 1944), definition of job-worker under a particular notification cannot be used for purposes of Modvat rules - Since assessee had obtained permission under Rule 57S, no reversal of credit was warranted [Paras 15 to 24] [In favour of assessee]
Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Not to be filed in certain cases - Tribunal held in favour of assessee relying upon its earlier decision in favour of assessee - Revenue had not challenged said earlier decision of Tribunal - HELD : Since earlier decision of Tribunal has been accepted by Department (having not been challenged); therefore, on same facts, revenue cannot agitate on same question, which has already been accepted by them [Paras 22 and 23] [In favour of assessee]
Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Maintainability of - High Court - Department sought to raise plea of double benefit before High Court - Said plea was not raised before Tribunal or lower authorities - HELD : Since revenue had not raised issue before first Appellate Authority or before Tribunal; therefore, there is no justification for revenue to raise plea afresh at first instance before High Court [Para 24] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars and Notifications : Notification No.119/75-C.E., dated April
Excise & Customs : Where assessee had obtained permission for clearance of moulds, etc. to various parties for use in manufacture of parts to be supplied to it, no reversal of credit was warranted as per Rule 57S ibid
■■■
[] (Madras)
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondichery Commissionerate
v.
Whirlpool of India Ltd.*
R. SUDHAKAR AND G.M. AKBAR ALI, JJ.
CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NOS. 2396,2682, 2877 & 3544 OF 2005
AUGUST 28, 2014
Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rules 2(n), 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - CENVAT Credit - Job-work - Assessee sent moulds and dies without payment of duty to job-workers for manufacture of parts of machines, after taking requisite permission under Rule 57S - Job-workers were manufacturing parts using raw materials procured from outside and were paying duty thereon - Revenue argued that since so-called job-workers were procuring raw material from market and not getting raw material from assessee, job-workers were actually 'principal manufacturer' and therefore, assessee was liable to reverse credit on moulds and dies at time of sending them - HELD : In absence of any definition of 'job-worker' in erstwhile Modvat Rules (Central Excise Rules, 1944), definition of job-worker under a particular notification cannot be used for purposes of Modvat rules - Since assessee had obtained permission under Rule 57S, no reversal of credit was warranted [Paras 15 to 24] [In favour of assessee]
Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Not to be filed in certain cases - Tribunal held in favour of assessee relying upon its earlier decision in favour of assessee - Revenue had not challenged said earlier decision of Tribunal - HELD : Since earlier decision of Tribunal has been accepted by Department (having not been challenged); therefore, on same facts, revenue cannot agitate on same question, which has already been accepted by them [Paras 22 and 23] [In favour of assessee]
Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Maintainability of - High Court - Department sought to raise plea of double benefit before High Court - Said plea was not raised before Tribunal or lower authorities - HELD : Since revenue had not raised issue before first Appellate Authority or before Tribunal; therefore, there is no justification for revenue to raise plea afresh at first instance before High Court [Para 24] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars and Notifications : Notification No.119/75-C.E., dated April
No comments:
Post a Comment