9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ. Mr. D. S. Ladda, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Prabhakar Shetty, Advocate h/f Mr. V. S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent ORDER : 1. The present appeal is filed on following questions of law. (a) Whether the CESTAT committed error in non-considering that the Respondents deliberately cleared goods under Rule 4(5) of CENVAT rules as if cleared for repairing/reconditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr Ladda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact the case is covered under Rule 4(5)(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The goods were removed after two years without any work being done on the said goods. The statements of the employees of the respondent were recorded, who categorically admitted that, no work of repair or reconditioning was done on the said machines. The learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment of this Court upholding the judgment of CESTAT West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in case of Cummins India Ltd. v Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune-III reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 911 (Tri. Mumbai) and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a case of Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, BBSR-I reported in 2012(05)LCX0040. 4. We have considered the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it has been held that, after retaining the goods for more than two years, the same have been sent back to the parent unit.
7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly decided the issue.
8. In the result, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
