9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der chapter sub-heading No. 8702.90 and 8706.29 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff. They also availed the facility of Modvat/Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods received in the factory under the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2004 (sic) and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The period of dispute in this case, is from 1-12-1998 to 31-12-2001. During this period, the respondent purchased the brake assemblies from M/s. KalyanI Brakes Ltd., Jalgaon and took the credit on the basis of invoices issued by them. But the goods, instead of being sent to the factory of the respondent, were despatched, on the instruction of the respondent, to M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune from whom the respondents were getting rear/front axles. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ront axles with intent to evade the duty. The department was of the view that in view of this, the respondent in view of the provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2001, were not eligible to cenvat credit of Rs. 10,59,169/- taken on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune. 1.3 In view of the above facts, a show cause notice dated 12-11-03 was issued to the respondent for - (a) Recovery of Modvat/Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 10,59,238/- taken by them during the period from 1-12-1998 to 31-12-2001 on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Kalyani Brakes Ltd., Jalgaon under Rule 57-I(1)(ii)/57AH(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2001 and Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 read with Proviso to Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th interest and imposition of penalty of equal amount. As regards cenvat credit demand of Rs. 10,59,169/- taken on the basis of the supplementary invoices issued by M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune in 2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was no case for the excise authorities to issue notice to the respondent relating to the credit of Rs. 10,59,169/- which had already been reversed by them based on the adjudication order passed at the Spicer India Limited's end. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that though the department had chosen to issue notice for disallowing the credit and the same was also confirmed in the order by the Additional Commissioner, he was of the view that the eligibility of the respondents to take credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n had sent the same directly to M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune for being fitted with rear/front axles on the instruction of the respondent and this had been done only to avoid the unnecessary transport expenses, that the respondent, in any case, after physically receiving brake assemblies in their factory could send the same to M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune for job work and avail cenvat credit in respect of the same, that only to avoid the unnecessary transport expenses, the brake assemblies were directly sent from M/s. Kalyani Brakes Ltd., Jalgaon to M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune, and that since in any case, the respondent had ultimately received the brake assemblies alongwith rear/front axles, Modvat/Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to them. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
