9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or (ii) Capital goods before being put to use, on which CENVAT Credit has been taken in written off fully or partially or where any provision to write off fully or partially has been made in the books of accounts, then the manufacturer or service provider, as the case may be, shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT Credit taken in respect of the said input or capital goods." 2.1. The other issues are not being contested by them. Ld. Counsel argued that the cenvat credit on inputs used in work in progress cannot be demanded when work in process is lost. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Joy Foam Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (322) ELT 209 (Mad.) He also relied on the decision of Tribunal in SMG International 2016 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been remitted on finished goods. 3. As regard writing off work in progress (WIP), it is stated that if the WIP has reached the stage, when it can be considered as manufactured goods, in that case, the same treatment as applicable to finished goods, discussed in para 2 above would apply. However, if the activity carried out on the WIP goods cannot be considered as amounting to manufacture, in that case, the said goods should be considered as input and the treatment for reversal of credit applicable to input would be applicable. " 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that Rule 5B deals with inputs and capital goods. It does not specifically deal with work in progress. Therefore n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled for claim of remission of duty but the appellant cannot be asked to reverse Cenvat credit. It is a fact on record that the appellant has not written off the value of semi-finished goods/work in progress. In that circumstance, Rule 3(5B) of the CCR, 2004 is not applicable in this case. Further, I have gone through to the provisional Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which are not applicable to the facts of this case as appellant has not filed any claim of remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any." 6. Relying on the aforesaid decision, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
