9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2004 (3) TMI 221 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) of the Tribunal is misplaced, as the said view of the Tribunal has been upturned by the Hon’ble High Court recording clearly that the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 post 1-3-2002 cannot be applied for the interim period when there were no provisions for availment of 100% Cenvat credit on capital goods if they were to be removed as such to their sister concern or any other place. On merits, find that the appeal fails. As regards the extended period invoked on an allegation that there was suppression, misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty, find that these allegations are not correct inasmuch, find that in the appellant’s own case, the Additional Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable as ₹ 1,66,987/- while Durgapur unit actually debited an amount of Rs. 83,494/- which was the amount of Cenvat credit availed by them as the moulds were received and removed in the same financial year. It is the case of the revenue that appellant could not have availed Cenvat credit of an amount of ₹ 83,494/- and should have availed Cenvat credit of ₹ 41,747/- only in the financial year when they received the moulds from Durgapur unit and balance amount of ₹ 41,747/- in the subsequent financial year. Both the lower authorities have held against the appellant. 3. Ld. counsel would take me through the entire records and submit that by coming to such a conclusion, the revenue authorities are depriving the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cenvat credit of ₹ 83,494/-. She would draw my attention to the Order-in-Original annexed to the appeal memo. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, would submit that the appellant had relied upon the judgment of Hindustan Lever Ltd. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 167 for availing Cenvat credit of the amount of Rs. 83,494/-. It is his submission that this decision has been reversed by the Hon ble High Court of Madras on an appeal filed by the revenue as reported at 2010 (257) E.L.T. 326. He would submit that during the period in question, no provisions of availing 100% Cenvat credit on capital goods if they were to be removed in the same financial year, in the statute. He fairly submits that for the period prior to 1-4-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not correct inasmuch, I find that in the appellant s own case, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Commissionerate, in an identical issue of transfer of moulds to their units has held that appellant could avail 50% of the amount of the duty payable on moulds, when purchased. Nothing was brought to my notice that revenue had filed an appeal against such an order. On perusal of the said order, which is annexed at page 140 of the appeal memo, I find that the issue is same. The appellant herein during the period October, 2000 (relevant period in this case) could have entertained a bona fide belief that they are eligible for Cenvat credit of 50% of the amount of duty payable on the capital goods when they were cleared by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
