2009 (1) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri R.P. Meena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. The impugned order raised demand of Rs. 63,59,864/- towards credit of duty, on capital goods installed in the premises not registered with the department as factory, along with interest under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). Equal penalty was imposed on the applicants under Rule 15 of CCR r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e segregated by public road, canal or railway-line. The fact that the two premises are part of the same factory will be decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise based on factors, such as: (1) Interlinked process - product manufactured/produced in one premise are substantially used in other premises for manufacture of final products. (2) Large number of raw materials are common and r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the premises where the impugned capital goods had been installed though not registered as part of factory. The completely manufactured goods were cleared from the registered factory premises on payment of duty. We find that, prima facie, the violation involved is technical and that the appellants were eligible for credit. It is yet to be examined if the demand is not time barred for the fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X