Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.57 seconds)
Proventus Life Sciences Pvt Ltd vs Chennai-Iii on 30 October, 2025 cites

Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988

"7. Thus on perusal of the above Rule, it is clear that a manufacturer who has availed CENVAT credit in respect of inputs, can send those inputs to his job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning, etc. or for manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, provided the processed inputs or intermediate products are returned back within a period of 180 days. There is no 18 condition that for availing the facility of this Rule, the job worker should avail full duty exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. There is no dispute that intermediate products made out of the inputs supplied by the Appellant were received back from the job workers within the stipulated period. The only point of dispute is as to whether the Appellant would be eligible for CENVAT credit of the duty paid by the job workers on the intermediate products which had been paid on the value equal to the cost of the free supply inputs excluding excise duty (the credit of which had been taken by the Appellant) plus job charges plus value of any other inputs of their own used by the said job workers for manufacture of the intermediate products. The Department seeks to deny the CENVAT credit of the duty on the intermediate product paid by the job workers on the ground that on the same inputs, CENVAT credit cannot be availed twice - first at the time of receipt the inputs by the Appellant in their factory from the input manufacturers and second time in respect of duty paid on intermediates goods made out of input supplied by Appellant upon receiving the same from the job workers. Logically, the ground on which the CENVAT credit is sought to be denied is totally incorrect. There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty Exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job workers. If the job worker decides to pay the duty on the intermediate products manufactured by him on job-work basis for the principal manufacturer, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.), they would be required to pay duty on the cost of input plus job charges including the cost of their own inputs used in manufacture. This is what the job workers have done in the present case. Moreover when the inputs, in question, have suffered twice, first in the hand of input 19 manufacturers from whom the Appellant had procured the inputs and second time in the hand of job workers who at the time of clearance of intermediate products made out of the inputs paid duty on value which included the cost of the inputs, the credit of the duty paid on the intermediate product cannot be denied when such intermediate were made out of those inputs, even if the Appellant had earlier taken the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs while receiving the same. In any case, the intermediate products made out of inputs are different from inputs and just because the Appellant have availed CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs, the CENVAT credit of duty, if any paid on the intermediate products by the job workers, cannot be denied to the principal manufactures."
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 540 - Full Document
1