9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce has not happened from the job-workers premises and the appellants have cleared the goods on payment of duty. The contention of the Revenue that they are huge machines and cannot be removed from one premises to other premises is not born out by any evidence whereas the appellant has produced the delivery challan for transfer of the machineries from the main premises to the job-worker premises and it is returned to the main factory. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement [2006 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held that if the mines are captive mines so that they constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned cement factory, then cenvat credit on capital goods are available. Credit allowed - appeal allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who also rejected the appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and the law. He further submitted that due to shortage of space for manufacture of final product, the appellant have established an extension of the premises of the factory by the same name M/s. MPP Technologies Pvt. Ltd. situated at No. 48 49, KIADB Industrial Area, Tumkur for processing the goods on job-work basis exclusively for the appellant and there is no clearance of final products from the premises of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods was for captive consumption and both the premises constitute an integral unit for factory then the manufacturer js eligible to take cenvat credit on the capital goods used at such premises. In support of this submission, the appellant relied upon the following decisions: a. Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 554 (Tri.-Bang.) b. Sri Eswari Auto Components (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai-IV 2016 (343) E.L.T. 597 (Tri. -Chennai) c. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2010 (257) E.L.T. 321 (S.C) d. Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 145 (S.C) e. CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Habasit Iakoka (P) Ltd. - 2014 (306) E.L.T. 455 (Mad.) f. Hindlco Industries Ltd, Vs. CCE, Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the job-workers premises and the appellants have cleared the goods on payment of duty. The contention of the Revenue that they are huge machines and cannot be removed from one premises to other premises is not born out by any evidence whereas the appellant has produced the delivery challan for transfer of the machineries from the main premises to the job-worker premises and it is returned to the main factory. Further I find that in the case of Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal in an identical situation has observed in para 5 as under: 5. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records, The first issue involved in this case is whether the lower authorities were justified in seekin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. I also find that the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd v CCE - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 318 (Tribunal) = 2006 (196) E.L.T. 18 (Tribunal) will cover the issue in favour of the assessee in this case. The ratio of the decision in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd. was taken in appeal by the Revenue to Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana. The decision of Tribunal was affirmed as reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 46 (P H). I also find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.G. Zaveri Pharmapack v. CCE, Mumbai - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 591 (Tri.-Mum.) and CCE, Aurangabad v. Vaishali India Ltd. - 2008 (84) RLT 576 (CESTAT-Mum.) = 2008 224 E.L.T. 247 (Tri.) will also cover the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
