9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant to show from the records that factually the inputs were in their stock on 10.06.2001. Merely the annexure to the sale invoices mentioning the item will not prove the case of Appellant in this regard. - E/91, 74, 92 & 70/07 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2011 - SHRI S.S. KANG, SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, JJ. Appearance: Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate Shri Uday Aditya Banerjee, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri B.B.Agarwal, Authorised Representative(Jt.CDR) for the Respondent (s) Per Shri S.S.Kang. 1. Common issue is involved in both the Appeals. Therefore the same are being taken up together. M/s.H.V.Axles Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HVAL) filed Appeal against the demand of ₹ 5,11,84,477/-(Rupees Five Cror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the inputs sold to TML treating the same as deemed removal of inputs as such. 5. The contention of Appellant is that in pursuance to the job-work agreement, the Appellants were manufacturing the goods on job-work basis and clearing the same to TML on payment of appropriate duty. Being job-worker the Appellants were entitled to take credit on the inputs which were supplied by the principal manufacturer i.e. TML as the Appellants are discharging duty on the finished goods. In case credit was reversed at the time of sale of inputs to TML the Appellants were entitled to take credit of the same as the inputs in question were used by the Appellants in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty on job work basis. It is also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs.CCE 2000 (115) ELT 452 (iii) BPL Electronics Ltd. Vs. CCE 1994 (71) ELT 801 (iv) Elcon Clipsal Vs. CCE 2002 (146) ELT 360 7. It is also submitted that the invoices under which the goods were sold to TML, the list of sale material was annexed which shows that the inputs were in the factory at the time of sale therefore the demand is not sustainable. 8. The contention of Revenue is that the goods were sold to TML vide agreement dated 10.06.2001 under the commercial invoices hence the Appellants were not entitled for credit on such inputs which were sold to TML under the proper sale invoices on payment of sale tax. Hence the Appellants were liable to reverse the credit in respect of such inputs. Revenue also submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain take credit and utilize for discharging the duty in respect of goods manufactured and supplied to TML. We find that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Marmagoa Steel Ltd. relied upon by the Appellants held that as under :- 10. For availing the credit of duty, what is required to be established under Rule 57G is that the inputs received are in fact duty paid. The procedure set out in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules is to ensure that the credit is taken on the basis of duty paid documents. The bill of entry is one such document set out in Rule 57G. The said rule does not require that the bill of entry should be in the name of the person claiming credit of duty. It is not in dispute that the goods imported and cleared o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices i.e. on 10.06.2001. As we held that Appellants are entitled for credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock on 10.06.2001 which were received in their factories after 30.03.2000 and on which credit has been availed but the Appellant to show from the records that factually the inputs were in their stock on 10.06.2001. Merely the annexure to the sale invoices mentioning the item will not prove the case of Appellant in this regard. Hence the matter requires re-consideration by the adjudicating authority in respect of the quantification of the credit in respect of the inputs which were actually lying in their stocks as on 10.06.2001 and Appellant to produce evidence in this regard. In view of this the impugned orders are set aside and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
