9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods are cleared without manufacturing process the duty which required to be paid is equal to the Cenvat credit availed. Rule 16 also holds the duty paid goods as inputs therefore the Cenvat credit is admissible. Entitlement for availment of Cenvat credit - Inward GTA service - goods on which credit was allegedly wrongly taken is not input service - Held that:- the goods are inputs in terms of Rule 16, therefore, the inward transportation of such goods shall be undoubtedly qualified as input service, even as per the interpretation drawn by the Ld. Commissioner, therefore the credit on inward GTA service in respect of transportation of the goods namely Oil Slump Body, Cylinder Head & Rover Cylinder is also admissible. Since we are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd carriage amounting ₹ 49,55,479/- (inclusive of Education Cess and Sec. Higher Edu. Cess) (in words: Rs. Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand and Four Hundred and Seventy Nine only] taken on Service tax, Education cess and Secondary Higher Secondary Education Cess and order the recovery of the same from the noticee in terms of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with first proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest. 3) I order the recovery of the interest at the appropriate rate from the noticee, on the amount demanded as above in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4) I impose penalty of ₹ 1,94,65,842/- on the Noticee under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Head Rover Cylinder are not inputs, the transportation of the goods cannot be treated as inward transportation of goods which are other than inputs. 3. Shri. Gajendra Jain, Ld. Advocate with Shri. Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the Appellants appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant purchased Oil Slump Body, Cylinder Head Rover Cylinder on payment of duty under the cover of duty paying excise invoice. On receipt of the said goods, in some cases where cylinder received without fitment, fitments are fitted by the appellant and in all the cases the process of painting, testing, checking, dimension measurement, fitting of fitments in case of exports and packing has been carried out. Thereafter the goods duly processed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) Lawkim Limited Vs. CCE, Pune- II[2007(218) ELT 142(T)] (c) P.R. Rolling Mills Private Limited Vs. CCE[2010(249) ELT 232(T)] He submits that it is undisputed that against the availment of Cenvat credit, they have paid excise duty on the sale value of the same goods therefore Cenvat credit which was availed stood paid on the clearance of final products. For this reason also demand of Cenvat credit not sustainable he placed reliance on following judgments: (a) CCE Vs. Rane NSK Steering Systems[2007(218) ELT 354(P H)] (b) AB Stamping Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE[2010 (259) ELT 299(T)] He further submits that even assuming the activity of the appellant is not of manufacture, in such case clearance of the goods in question shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation, he submits that demand is for the period from 1/4/2005 to 31/3/2009 whereas show cause notice was issued on 29/4/2010 therefore entire demand is beyond one year. He submits that the departmental authorities were fully aware of the facts that availment of Cenvat credit and payment of duty, therefore there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, hence the demand hit by limitation also. 4. Shri. V. K. Agrawal, Ld. ADC., (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. We find that the Ld. Counsel made various alternative submissions. We find that activity of the appellant i.e. receipt of duty paid goods i.e. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-conditioned or for any other reason and may remove the goods subsequently subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner. From the above rule, it is clear that the assesee is entitle to avail Cenvat credit on the duty paid goods even though the said duty paid goods does not undergo manufacturing process. The only condition is that if the duty paid goods is cleared after process which amounts to manufacture, the assesee is required to pay duty on the transaction value and if the goods are cleared without manufacturing process the duty which required to be paid is equal to the Cenvat credit availed. Rule 16 also holds the duty paid goods as inputs therefore the Cenvat credit is admissible. The judgment in this regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
