9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee - it is apparent that credit is available to a manufacturer or producer of final product, which means excisable goods manufactured or produced and such credit is for the duty paid on any inputs or capital goods received in the factory after the prescribed date. Admittedly, the capital goods in question were received in the factory of the respondent-assessee and were used for the purposes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent was not owner? 2. The case of Revenue, as propounded by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that respondent-assessee is carrying on job-work for M/s. Pidilite Industries Limited. That the capital goods which were used for the purposes of manufacturing final product were owned by M/s. Pidilite Industries Limited and did not appear in the balance sheet of respondent-assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing in CENVAT Rules which supports the view that credit will be available only if the burden of duty is borne by the input purchasing manufacturers. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the case, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal holding that the denial of credit was not correct. CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, define capital goods under Rule 2(b) of the Rules. Rule 3, as is material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1), as amended by section 169 of the Finance Act, 2003 (32 of 2003); (vi) the additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to the duty of excise specified under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) above; and (vii) the additional duty of excise leviable under section 157 of the Finance Act, 2003 (32 of 2003), paid on any inputs or capital goods received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture or production of final products. The respondent-assessee has/fulfilled all the requisite conditions of the Rule. 5. It is not the case of appellant-Revenue that even M/s. Pidilite Industries Limited had claimed credit for the same capital goods which were supplied by M/s. Pidilite Industries Limited to respondent-assessee. In the circumstances, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
