Principal manufacturer eligible to take credit of duty so paid by job-worker
PrintListen to this Article
Principal manufacturer eligible to take credit of duty so paid by job-worker
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III Commissionerate Vs. Sundaram Auto Components Ltd. [2015 (62) taxmann.com 242 (Madras)]
The Department has denied credit of duty paid by job-worker to Sundaram Auto Components Ltd., principal manufacturer (“the Respondent”) on the ground that the job-worker had paid duty even when he was not required to pay in terms of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated March 25, 1986. Thus, the Respondent has availed double benefits by claiming credit of duty paid to supplier of inputs & duty paid and collected by job-worker.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras relying upon the following judgments:
- International Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC)];
- CCE Vs. Kohinoor Printers (P.) Ltd. [2008 taxmann.com 911 (Chennai - CESTAT)];
- CCE&C Vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2005 taxmann.com 484 (SC)]
held that credit of duty paid by job-worker can be availed by the principal manufacturer, even if job-worker forgoes exemption and pay duty on semi-processed goods returned to the principal-manufacturer. It was further held that the Respondent did not claim credit twice as it only claimed credit of (a) duty paid to supplier of inputs; and (b) duty paid and collected by job-worker, which, even according to the Department, was not payable by job-worker. Since duty was paid by the Respondent both times, Cenvat credit was available and same cannot be construed as double benefit by applying theory of unjust enrichment
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 437
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...
Comments