9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition No. E/S/2842/2009 is to the tune of Rs. 21,96,145/- with penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs and the penalty imposed upon the other 100% EOU involved in E/S/2843/2009 is Rs. 50,000/-. 3. After hearing both the sides, we note that the domestic unit procured certain inputs and availed the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the same. Subsequently the said inputs were cleared by them to their 100% EOU sister concern, without payment of any duty or without reversal of Cenvat credit availed on the said inputs. Such transfer of inputs by the domestic unit to 100% EOU was after obtaining the permission of the Commissioner and after obtaining the requisite CT-3 certificate in terms of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003. 4. The said notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn our attention to the Tribunal decision in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. v. CCE (Appeals), Bangalore reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 51 (Tri.-Bang.), extending the benefit of notification to a procured manufacturer of capital goods, which stand ultimately cleared to a 100% EOU. He submits that the said decision of the Tribunal stand confirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court reported as 2011 (267) E.L.T. 160 (Kar.). 7. However, we find that the said decision of the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the goods involved in that case were the capital goods, which were put to use by the appellant for a considerable period of time. It was observed in the said order that the capital goods w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fairly agrees that the condition involved in the past notification as also in the present notification is identical. Ld. Advocate further submits that the Larger Bench, while delivering the above decision has taken note of the amendment in the provision of Rule 57F, vide which the concept of 'deemed manufacture' was removed. He draws our attention to the provision of Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which confers the status of manufacture on the recipient of the inputs. 9. We have seen the said Rule 16, relied upon by the Advocate. The same relates to the credit of duty on the goods brought back to the factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason. The expression for 'any other reason' cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd as such precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Solectron Centum and Manaksia Ltd. would equally apply. The said plea is also not accepted on the ground that the said two decisions are prior to the Larger Bench decision, which has clearly held that the inputs will not get the benefit of the notification. Inasmuch as in the case of Larger Bench the inputs were involved and the said Larger Bench decision is subsequent to the two decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate, we find no merit in their favour so as to allow the stay petition. 11. As we find no prima facie case in favour of the appellant and as no financial hardship stands pleaded we direct the applicant to deposit the entire amount of duty within a period of eight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
