Case Law Details
Macneil Engineering Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
It is the case of the department that in response to the said Show Cause Notice, the assessee was not able to produce the required evidence in support of their job work claim, in as much as the appellants failed to produce a copy of the requisite intimation/undertaking required to be made to the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner as regards their adherence thereto as set out in job work notification 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. Besides they also failed to produce job work challans and other records/registers evidencing the possession of inputs, as prescribed in terms of notification No. 214/86-CE.
In terms of sub rule (I) of Rule (3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004, a manufacturer of finished goods is allowed the benefit of availment of CENVAT Credit on any inputs used in the manufacture of intermediate goods, processed by way of job work, availing the benefit of exemption as contained in MF, DR Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, and received by them for use in or in relation to, the manufacture of final product.
For failure to demonstrate adherence to legal prescriptions, the authorities below did not find sufficient merit in the appellants claim. They held the entire issue to be violative of the provisions of law, thereby denying the appellants the benefits sought & upholding the Show Cause Notice.
it is an admitted position that the appellant could produce no document whatsoever, in support of their contention for credit availment for the year 2006-07. Moreover, they were shorn of any facility to process the pig iron within their factory premises. The impugned order in appeal records a clear finding that no effort was made by the appellant to counter the specific examples cited by the adjudicating authority in support of his finding that the evidence/documents tendered in support were concocted, fabricated and an afterthought. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd, -2004(171) ELT 296 (S.C.) has held that filing of a declaration as envisaged in an exemption notification/conditions are not merely procedural or an empty formality. It may be pointed out that the same is the foundation for availing the benefits under the notification. Such stipulations are therefore, with attached consequences which in the present case are in the nature of denial of benefits under the said notification.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
