9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s department audit group noticed that for the period 7/01 to 9/05, appellants had procured capital goods viz. shot blasting machine with accessories, D.G. Set, Electrical equipments etc., and availed cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 2,15,174/- but the said capital goods were not installed in the registered premises of the appellants but at SY No.335 and 336, Hangirkar compound, Udyambag Belgaum. Hence a show cause notice dated 22.2.2007 was issued demanding the Cenvat credit wrongly availed along with interest and penalty. Before original authority appellants contended that change of name of their unit and starting of foundry unit at another site was informed to the department; that the availment of credit on the said capital goods was du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital goods are installed, they could have manufactured the castings and transferred them on payment of duty on cost construction basis to their main unit and their main unit could have taken the credit. It is his submission that there is no question of revenue loss to the revenue. 4. Learned DR on the other hand would submit that the appellant should have got the unit registered. It is his submission that the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002-2004 specifically provide for use of the said capital goods in the factory of the manufacturer and it is his submission that the provisions being very clear he should have used the said capital goods in the premises where he was registered to pay the duty. 5. I have considered the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds which were installed undisputedly in the appellant's own unit within the jurisdiction of the same range office. It is undisputed that the second unit where capital goods were stored is of the appellant only and it is also admitted that entire goods manufactured and cleared by other unit is received by the appellants. In such a situation, the credit of the duty paid on the capital goods by the appellants cannot be denied by the revenue authorities. I am fortified in my view with the decision in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd. vs. CCE, Faridabad [2006 (196) ELT 18 (Tri.-Del)]. The ratio of the said decision is reproduced herein below:- A perusal of the records makes it clear that capital goods were moved only between the appellant' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
