9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was entitled to take CENVAT credit in the second year, as the end product was taxable. 2. The respondent-assessee is absent in spite of notices served. The assessee had filed a request for adjournment on 13/2/15, same was allowed and next date was fixed on 20/3/15 on which date the appeal was restored to its original number, as the earlier final Order No. A/763/209/SMB/C-IV dated 3/12/09 was set aside by the Honble Bombay High Court, in Central Excise appeal No. 141 of 2010, remanding the issue to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Honble High Court in its order dated 9/12/10 have taken note that this Tribunal vide the final order in the matter had dismissed the appeal of Revenue, relying on the ruling of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory premises on 30/6/04, as appeared from GRN and mentioned in the statement prepared by the respondent-assessee for claiming the transitional credit. The respondent-assessee imported the said capital goods under bill of entry No. 13321 dated 11/3/2003, for clearance for home consumption, on which it had paid Customs duty on 4/06/2004. Accordingly, the Revenue found that the respondent-assessee had received the capital goods in the factory of manufacture before 10/9/2004, when CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 became effective. The capital goods, namely S.S. Caul Plates, were received within the factory on 30/6/2006 which was prior to the date, that is 10/9/04, and hence the credit on the said goods was not admissible and accordingly was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant period. 4. The show-cause notice was adjudicated holding that the eligibility of CENVAT credit has to be decided on the date of receipt of the capital goods in the factory of production and accordingly the proposed demand was confirmed along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with section 11AC. Being aggrieved the appellant had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to allow the appeal relying on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Ace Timez Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore (supra). Being aggrieved the Revenue had preferred appeal before this Tribunals and vide final order as mentioned hereinabove the appeal was dismissed, which now stands restored in view of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court) in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - 2005 (179) ELT A38 (S.C.) which was affirmed by the Honble Apex Court, held, the relevance of the date of receipt of capital goods for the purpose of availment of credit has been already recognised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that credit to the extent of 75% of CVD on capital goods alone was permissible, as this was the percentage of admissibility of credit on the date when the capital goods were received under project import regulations in the factory of the manufacture, that is, on 29/2/2000, although installed in the factory on 1/3/2000 and used subsequently, rejecting the argument of the assessee that the restriction to the extent of 75% of credit admissibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
