9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the Commissioner is correct. Similarly, we find that no case has been made by the Revenue that the respondent has used the machine exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goods. The respondent was manufacturing the goods on job work basis, which were not exempt but were dutiable and duty was paid by their customer. In any case, we find that the said machines were removed from their Aurangabad plant on reversal of the entire amount of the cenvat credit taken on the capital goods and in view of the fact that the entire amount of cenvat credit was reversed only later on, nothing survives in the matter - Decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No. E/2472/05-Mum - Final Order No. A/3195/2015-WZB/SMB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were doing only the job work and as per the condition prevalent at that time that if the capital goods are used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods, credit on the capital goods cannot be availed. The learned AR took us through the show cause notice and submitted that in view of this factual position, the respondent is not entitled to take the cenvat credit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they had the triplicate copy of the bill of entry, but somehow it was later on misplaced and they had produced the attested copy of the bill of entry from the Custom House. They had also registered a FIR for the loss or the misplacement of the triplicate copy of the bill of entry. He further submitted that it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate has been issued and assessments for the relevant period have also been finalised, therefore, allegations to invoke extended period are not sustainable. Thus without going in to the details on merits as to whether credit is admissible when assessee is not having triplicate copy of Bill of Entry and have attested copy of the same, the extended period at this juncture can not be invoked as there is no case of suppression or misstatement of facts and demand is not sustainable on this ground. 8. The next issue is about availment of Modvat credit on capital goods, which were exclusively used for manufacture of goods on job work basis on which no duty is required to be paid. I find that Rule 57R of the C.Ex. Rules 1944 specified that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable in this case. 6. We have considered the grounds of appeal. We find that on merits itself, the demands are not sustainable. It is not under dispute that the goods were imported and CVD was paid. The respondent-assessee has produced the triplicate copy of the bill of entry at the time of taking the credit. It is only after the audit was done that the said copy was not available. We also note that installation certificate was issued by the Superintendent after visiting the factory and seeing the bill of entry etc. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the Commissioner is correct. Similarly, we find that no case has been made by the Revenue that the respondent has used the machine exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
