2016 (3) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t: Shri M.S. Negi, DR ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY The brief facts of this case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of different automobile parts. During the disputed period, the appellant availed cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on moulds, treating the same as capital goods. The cost of moulds purchased from open market was recovered by the appellant from the customers of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Tangri appearing for the appellant submits that the moulds have not been removed from the factory and to that effect, he has produced the Chartered Engineers certificate before this Tribunal. 3. The Department's contention is that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that the moulds have not been removed to the customers under the cover of invoices issued by it. It is the furthe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... moved from the factory, the requirements of Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules will have no application. The said rule provides payment of equal amount of cenvat credit, when the Cenvat availed inputs or capital goods are removed as such from the factory. Since, moulds, in this case, have not been removed from the factory by the appellant; denial of cenvat benefit by the authorities below is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X