Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. vs Ccex. on 14 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(192)ELT170(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
C. Satapathy (T), Member
1. Heard both sides. The appellants cleared certain inputs, on which credit was taken, to their job worker without payment of duty. Consequently, the job worker did not take any credit on these inputs. There is a provision in the rules under which the job worker could have returned the inputs after processing without payment of duty. However, the job worker paid the full duty on the processed goods and sent back the same to the appellants. The appellants have taken credit of the duty paid on such processed materials, which were used for manufacture of finished goods. The duty demand has been raised against the appellants on the ground that they are not entitled to take credit twice on the same material.
2. I have perused the case records and have carefully considered the matter. The learned Advocate has cited earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Anupam Engineering Works - 1999 (113) ELT 497 (Tri), in which it was held that input credit is not deniable to the manufacturer just because the job worker paid duty on the intermediate components under the normal procedure in place of returning them to the manufacturer without payment of duty. The facts in present case are similar. The appellants have taken credit of duty in the first place on the inputs and then they have taken credit of duty paid on the processed inputs. The rules provided a choice to pay duty on the inputs, credit of which could have taken by the job worker while paying the duty on the processed goods. There was also a choice to clear the inputs duty free to the job worker and relieve back the processed goods without payment of duty. In the present case, neither of these options have been exercised. The job worker has received the input duty free and has paid the full duty while clearing the processed goods. As a result, the job worker has suffered more duty. However, the total duty payable on the finished goods, less the credit of duty earlier paid on the inputs and the processed goods, has come to the government revenue. There is also no findings by the lower authorities that there is any loss of the government revenue because of the particular way the inputs have been cleared without payment of duty and the processed goods have been cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal's decision cited above also supports the case of the appellants that duty credit is not deniable in such cases where the job worker pays the duty on the intermediate components.
3. In view of my findings as above, I am of the view that the duty demand against the appellants is not sustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by the lower authorities with consequent benefit to the appellant. The appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 14/1/05)