Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (12) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd., [2013 (10) TMI 145 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The Ld. Commissioner also held that the demand is time barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond one year of the removal of the goods. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the goods were cleared under CT-3 which was issued by the department. In the present case, the 100% EOU is located within the same premises and falling under the same jurisdiction of the Central Excise, Pune. Therefore the authority issuing the CT-3 certificate must be aware about the 100% EOU as well as the respondent factory. In view of this fact there appears to be no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, therefore, the show cause notice issued beyond the stipulation period is time barr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aggrieved by the order-in-original, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by the impugned order allowed the appeal on two counts one is that duty is payable by the respondent can be availed as cenvat credit by the 100% EOU. Secondly, the demand is time bar for the reason that the goods were cleared under CT-3 which was issued by the department and the entire fact of removal of cenvatable capital goods was known to the department. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue filed this appeal. 2. Shri S.V. Nair, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that as per the Larger Bench decision in the case of Lakshmi Automatic Loom Work .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Bangalore-II Vs. Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. 2014 (309) E.L.T. 479 (Kar.) distinguished the Larger Bench judgment on the ground that the issue involved in the Larger Bench was on the removal of input as such and not on the used capital goods, therefore the Larger Bench decision in the case of Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd.(supra) is not applicable. He alternatively submits that during the relevant period the reversal of cenvat credit was provided only in respect of the capital goods removed as such and there was no provision for reversal. In the present case the capital goods was removed after use. This fact is not under dispute that the capital goods was used by the respondent for a subst .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case law of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Vs. Chloride Industries Ltd. wherein it has been held that if there was no loss of revenue in the real sense as the subject goods were component parts and the same were removed to their sister concerns by way of stock transfer. As soon as the goods reached their sister concerns the duty paid on them were taken credit of in the proforma credit account . As such the point of revenue neutrality is sustainable. (b) As regards the time bar the goods were removed without payment of duty under CT-3 certificate issued by the Department on 26.9.01. Since the removal without payment was within the knowledge of the Department of Show Cause Notice issued on 29.08.03 is time barred. The department .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent on the ground that 100% EOU is eligible for the cenvat credit if all the cenvat credit is reversed by the respondent. I find that this finding of the Ld. Commissioner is also based on the judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Sun Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd. and Synpol Products Ltd. (supra). The Ld. Commissioner also held that the demand is time barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond one year of the removal of the goods. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the goods were cleared under CT-3 which was issued by the department. In the present case, the 100% EOU is located within the same premises and falling under the same jurisdi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates