9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till 21/03/2014 and a demand show-cause notice was issued to the respondent asking them to reverse the credit taken on the said capital goods. Under the Rules, the goods cleared under Rule 4 (5) (a) have to return back to the supplier within 180 days of the clearance. The respondent informed Revenue that the said machine was destroyed in a fire accident along with certain other inputs and therefore, the same could not be returned. 2.1 Ld. AR pointed out that the Commissioner has relied on the certain decision to drop the demand. He argued that the said decision is clearly distinguishable. He argued that the decision of Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 554 (Tri-Bang) and certain other decision relied on the assertion that situat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demanded in these circumstances. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. The respondents have sought to rely on the decision in the case of Zenith Machine Tools (supra), where the machine was transferred to sister unit but was available there. The said machine was not destroyed or removed from there. In these circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the benefit. In the instant case, the machine sent under Rule 4 (5) (a) was not found in the sister premises. The appellant had reversed the credit of input destroyed in the sister unit but did not intimate the Revenue about the destruction of the machine. Revenue has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Merino Industries Ltd. 2014 (309) ELT 379 (Tri-Del) wherein under simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r unit under the said Rule. The respondent had purchased the machine in 2009 and immediately receipt of the same had taken credit and cleared the same under Rule 4 (5) (a) to the sister unit. The machine since 2009 was lying in the sister unit. The situation in these circumstances is not revenue neutral. After availing the credit in 2009 the appellant would have required to pay the said amount after expiry of 180 days to the Revenue and although the same amount would have been available as credit to the sister unit still Government would have received money in cash. Moreover, the amendment and the pattern of utilization of Cenvat Credit in both the units also has not been declared. In these circumstances, I find merit in the appeal of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
