9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently the penalty does not call for any interference - E/677/2008-SM(BR) - 362/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 11-3-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 63/CE/CHD/2008 dated 21-1-2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent received capital goods in their factory at Parwanoo, Dist. Solan unit during the period February, 1996 to July, 1996 and December, 1996 and took Modvat credit under Rules 57Q. The respondent could not install the same and hence the same were removed from the factory in February, 1999. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and order of the original authority should be restored. 5.1 Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that due to unavoidable circumstances, the capital goods could not be installed and utilised by Parwanoo unit. However, the same have been removed to the factory of the same manufacturer (same legal entity) and same has been used for the intended purpose inasmuch as the goods have been removed from one of their units of the same manufacturer to their other unit i.e. of the same manufacturer. In the given circumstances, there is no jurisdiction to treat the capital goods as if manufactured in their Parwanoo unit and he seeks to upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5.2 Alternatively, he also submits that since the removal fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parwanoo factory, the respondent was entitled to the said higher amount as credit and therefore, it is clear case of revenue neutrality. In addition to above, it is noticed that Rule 57 clearly permits the capital goods in respect of credit of specific duty been allowed under Rule 57Q may be used in the factory of the manufacturer of final product. In the present case, it is apparent that the capital goods stands used by the manufacturer though in a different factory than the one in which the said goods were initially received. 7. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand and consequently the penalty does not call for any interference. 8. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
