9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants are manufacturers of electric stampings. They procured AC Motors/Generators from M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. and availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid on such Motors/Generators. Lower authorities on scrutiny of the ER-1 Returns, came to the conclusion that these were neither capital goods nor inputs used in their factory and the show cause notices were issued for reversal and demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalties besides demanding interest. Aggrieved by such an order, assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who also held the same view and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is a manufacturer of electric stamping, in that process, the appellant could not use the AC Motors/Generators. It is his submission that the said goods cannot be considered as inputs or capital goods used in or in relation to the manufacturing of the final products as provided under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is his submission that having availed the credit wrongly, the appellant is liable to reverse back the amount along with interest and penalties wrongly imposed. He would distinguish the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi (supra) and CCE v. Rane NSK Steering Systems Ltd. (supra) on the ground that the facts are totally different. 5.I have considered the submissions m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that when there is no duty demand, penalties are not attracted." 5.2 It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that an identical situation arose before the Division Bench. The decision of the Division Bench is binding on me. 6. Further, I find that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana also in an identical matter in the case of CCE v. Rane NSK Steering Systems Ltd. (supra) settled the law. I may with respect reproduce the entire judgment : "2009 (13) S.T.R. 327 (P&H) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M.M. Kumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus RANE NSK STEERING SYSTEMS LTD. CEA No. 159 of 2006, decided on 20-2-2007 REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Daya Chau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
