Case Law Details

Case Name : Filtrum Tools & Components (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (CESTAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : Order No. A/20/2012/SMB/C-IV
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/03/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (1030) CESTAT Mumbai (197)

CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH

Filtrum Tools & Components (P.) Ltd.

V/s.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

ORDER NO. A/20/2012/SMB/C-IV

APPEAL NO. E/125 OF 2010-MUM

MARCH 5, 2012

ORDER

1. This is an appeal filed by the Filtrum Tools & Components Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) against the Order-in-Appeal No. P-l/VSK/268/2009 dated December 23, 2009.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods and had availed the Cenvat credit on inputs cleared to the job worker under a challan issued under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat credit Rules and received back after discharge of duty by the job worker. The Department has not allowed the Cenvat credit of duty paid by the job worker. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued which was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner on 12th November, 2009 by confirming duty along with interest and imposing equal amount of penalty. The appellant challenged the Order-in-Original in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order rejected their appeal. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this is a fact that the duty has been paid by the job worker and inputs were returned to the appellant. Once duty has been paid by job worker, there is no reason for denying to Cenvat credit of duty paid by job worker on inputs returned after processing to the appellant. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE v. Nestle India Ltd. 2012 (275) E.L.T 49 in support of his contention.

4. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the appeal has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. After hearing both the sides, I find that question involved in the appeal is whether the duty paid by the job worker on goods, received back by the appellant can be availed as Cenvat credit by the appellant. I find that the issue involved in the appeal is clearly covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra). Once the duty has been paid by job worker on goods sent back to appellant, there is no reason to deny benefit of Cenvat credit to the appellant.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

NF

More Under Excise Duty

0 Comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

December 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031