9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on equipments and procured various parts of the same from their parent company located in Sweden. The said parts are being imported by them and are being cleared on concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.24/05-Cus., which requires payment of countervailing duty only. The CVD paid by them is being availed as credit. 3. During the course of manufacture of transmission equipment some of the parts so imported by them are found to be defective. Inasmuch as the said parts were under warranty period, a claim is lodged by the appellant to the centre of the same. The appellants claim is accepted, the imported defective parts are re-exported and compensation comes either by the way of cash payment or replacement of the parts. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed law that an assessee cannot be asked to reverse the credit, once the inputs have been issued for use in the manufacture of the final product and are found to be defective or damaged at the assembly line. 6. Ld. JCDR Shri Promod Kumar appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the findings of the Commissioner, which are to the effect that the inputs are found defective, even before the same are to be used by the assessee and, as such, the assessees are under a legal liability to reverse the credit. 7. Having appreciated the submissions made by both sides and have been gone through the allegations made in the show cause notice, we find that the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the inputs are found defective or damaged pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In-fact, the following decisions deal with an identical situation, where the inputs originally imported were subsequently, re-exported on being detected as damaged or faulty. 1. CCE, Jaipur-I vs. RFH Metal Casting (P) Ltd. 2005 (184) ELT 194 (T) 2. Indus Theco Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad 2007 (212) ELT 85 (T) 3. Videocon International Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara-II 2009 (235) ELT 135(T) 4. Gujrat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madurai 2010 (258) ELT 574 (T) 5. Zydex Industries vs. CCE, Vadodara 2007 (219) ELT 602 (T) 6. Gujrat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE Madurai 2010 (258) ELT 7. Capital Industries vs. CCE, Delhi 2010 (261) ELT 572 (T) Further, the following decisions are to the effect that removal, as such means removal of the inputs bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
