9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the present case is based only on the understanding of Revenue that the Modvat credit paid on capital goods brought into the factory for manufacture of float glass was not admissible to assessee till such time the manufacture of float glass did not commenced. The said issue has been clarified by C.B.E.C. through said circular dated 02-12-1996. We find that the said circular is squarely applicable in the present case. We therefore set aside both the impugned Orders-in-Original and impugned Order-in-Appeal. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal Nos. E/2345/2007 & 2360/2007 –EX [DB] - Final Order No. 70763-70764/2016 - Dated:- 29-8-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o November, 1995 another Show Cause Notice dated 22-12-1995 was issued through which the credit of ₹ 6,28,37,496/- was proposed to be denied. The subsequent Show Cause Notice dated 22-12-1995 had a proposal to demand of duty of ₹ 1,76,10,163/- which was paid by utilizing alleged ineligible credit. Further, credit of ₹ 98,08,679/- was proposed to be denied on the ground that name of the consignee showed the address of office. On 18-03-1997 a corrigendum was issued to the Show Cause Notice dated 28-11-1995 proposing to deny credit on the refractory material. The Show Cause Notice dated 22-12-1995 was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 21-03-1996 which was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals) and ld. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is not commencing production the credit was disallowed and held to be recoverable under Rule 57U of Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of ₹ 50,00,000/- was imposed both the Orders-in-Original dated 07-12-2006 03-04-2007 were challenged before Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) through his impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 24-05-2007, upheld both the Orders-in-Original on the ground that the credit was inadmissible to the appellant for the reason that the manufacture of float glass had not started by the time the credit was taken by the appellants. 3. Challenging in the said Order-in-Appeal dated 24-05-2007 present two appeals are filed on the grounds that (a) It is undisputed that capital goods were receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as clarified by said C.B.E.C. circular dated 02-12-1996 was admissible if the capital goods were received in the factory before 01-01-1996 even if they are not installed/used for manufacture. Ld. DR has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. We have taken rival contentions into consideration. We find that the present case is based only on the understanding of Revenue that the Modvat credit paid on capital goods brought into factory for manufacture of float glass was not admissible to assessee till such time the manufacture of float glass did not commenced. The said issue has been clarified by C.B.E.C. through said circular dated 02-12-1996. We find that the said circular is squa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
