9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of excisable goods i.e. Cigarettes, Packing materials of paper and paper board and printing inks. They are availing the CENVAT credit facility on their inputs, capital goods and input services. The applicant received plain cylinders/rollers from various vendors who are not paying Central Excise duty as their turnover is below one Crore. The cylinders/rollers so purchased are then cleared by them to their vendors for engraving/dechroming/rechroming. The vendors carry out the said process and then clear the said rollers/cylinders on payment of Central Excise duty under Central Excise invoices. On receipt of the cylinders/rollers from their vendors the applicant avail CENVAT credit. These rollers/cylinders are then used for print ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The credit is denied following the decision in the case of M/s. Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad - 2008 (232) ELT 29 (Tri.-LB) wherein it was held that expression 'as such' to be interpreted as commonly understood which is in the original form and without any addition, alteration or modification. The Larger Bench dealt with the issue under Rule 4(5) (a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the learned Advocate relied on the decision Cummins India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III - 2007 (219) ELT 911 (Tri.- Mumbai) of wherein it was held that when the capital goods were removed after usage, the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, are not ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) hence is not applicable. I have gone through the show-cause notice and the impugned orders wherein the denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant was made under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which is identical to Rule 3(4) CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Hence, the decision of Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not relevant to this case. As in the case of Cummins India Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held that when the capital goods have been removed 'as such' after putting into use the credit taken by the appellant is not required to be reversed, the same is directly applicable to the facts of this case and the same is followed by this Tribunal in the case of Greenply Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
