9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for use in the manufacture of the same final product. Similar issues was dealt with by the Tribunal in the various cases which were also upheld by Hon’ble High Courts. The ratio of Tribunal's decision in the case of Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Belgaum [2010 (4) TMI 481 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] by following the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Pooja Forge Ltd. [2007 (11) TMI 316 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH] is squarely applicable to the case. Therefore, by following the same, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee with consequential relief - Appeal No. E/41585/2015 - Final Order No. 41458/2016 - Dated:- 6-9-2016 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them, and also proposed imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 15 of CCR 2004. Upon adjudication of notice, the adjudicating authority, after due process of law, confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,56,321/- with interest and appropriated the amount of ₹ 1,56,321/- already reversed by them against the demand and levied interest besides imposing penalty of equal amount. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. Hence the present appeal by appellant-assessee before the Tribunal. 3. Shri S. Durairaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-assessee submits that cenvat credit taken on the capital goods is denied only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the lower authorities have correctly held that the credit is inadmissible and removal of capital goods to their sister unit was unearthed only during audit. Hence invocation of longer period is applicable. He reiterated the findings in the impugned order and prayed that appeal may be dismissed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the appeal records including the case laws cited by appellant. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellant-assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit on capital goods which were sent to their sister unit who are job worker under Rule 4(5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules. It is not in dispute that the capital goods on which cenvat credit availed was remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) very clearly envisages eligibility to Cenvat credit on the inputs or capital goods which are sent to a job worker. The only condition in Rule 4(5)(a) is that the said capital goods has to be received back within 180 days of that being sent to job worker and this condition not complied with, then assessee shall reverse an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit taken and can take the Cenvat credit when the capital goods are received back in the factory or the job worker s premises. I find that there is no dispute that the said capital goods are utilized by the job worker, it would lend support to the argument that there would be a revenue neutrality and the reversal of Cenvat credit would be revenue neutral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
