2015 (1) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same financial year on the ground that once moulds are put to use, the same loose the character as such, hence the appellant could not be eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on the balance 50% of the CENVAT Credit at the time of its clearance in the same financial year. Held that:- Appellant had reversed the entire amount of CENVAT credit availed before removal of the capital goods in the same financial year. In the result, we have no hesitation to conclude that the capital goods which were put to use and when cleared from the factory, would be eligible to the balance 50% of CENVAT credit available on such capital goods on its clearance from the factory in the same financial year. Consequently, we do not find merit in the order of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2002/2004, as the case may be, read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944; also recovery of interest at the appropriate rates, under Rule 12/14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2002/2004 read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 has been confirmed. Hence, the present appeal. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that the demand has been confirmed solely on the ground that the moulds which the appellant had used in their factory after availing 50% of the eligible credit, did not remain as such, hence, availing of balance 50% credit in the same financial year, at the time of its clearance from the factory, was irregular. The Ld. Advocate submits that even after the moulds are put to use in the factory, it cannot be said that at the ti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... VAT Credit on the balance 50%, in the next financial year. The moot point, therefore is, whether the moulds on its use in the factory for some time, cannot be called as such within the meaning of the said expression as laid down under Rule 4 (2) (a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) which has been later upheld by the Hon ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 4th November, 2009.A somewhat similar view has also been expressed later, by another Larger Bench, in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. reported in 2013 (298) E.L.T. 541 (Tri.-LB) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X