2007 (11) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vehicles to Automatic Research Association of India, Pune for statutory test during the period October, 2001 to September, 2002 by availing Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,34,699/-. The Audit carried out the scrutiny of records. On the basis of such reports, the show cause notice was issued. The date of scrutiny is not mentioned in the show cause notice, which has been alleged that they have availed irregular Cenvat credit to the above stated amount on 12 Three-Wheeler vehicles returned from the said research association during the above stated period, as the vehicles were in not intended to be remade, refined or reconditioned or for subjecting to similar processes. The department has alleged suppression of facts and invoked larger period .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tober, 2001 to September, 2002. Therefore, the show cause notice and confirmation of demands is barred by time. 4. I have heard both sides. The learned Counsel argued on the above basis while the learned JDR points out that the matter has to go back to Original Authority for re-verification of the facts. It is his submission that it is not clear from records as to whether the worn out parts were removed or not. It is his submission that the vehicles which have come back from the research association cannot be put to repairs or for any process of manufacture because they are to be considered as junk, which has been removed in worn out condition. 5. The learned Counsel contradicts the learned JDR s submissions by pointing out from the rec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s were received after testing in the appellant's factory. They were taken into stock and took Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules and later the vehicles were sold on payment of duty. Invoices have also been produced. The learned Counsel also produces the copy of the following judgments to support his plea that they have properly followed the procedure and there is no irregular availment of credit. (i) Supreme Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 453 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) Nikvik Electronics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 276 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) BAPL Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 587 (Tri.-Chennai) (iv) CCE, Noida v. Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. - 2005 (1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X