9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case payment of duty on the inputs is not disputed. The Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS AJINKYA ENTERPRISES [ 2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that when the duty has been paid on the finished products then the availment of the credit of duty paid on inputs cannot be faulted. The demand cannot sustain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 40097 of 2014 - FINAL ORDER NO. 42322 / 2021 - Dated:- 15-9-2021 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. Arul C. Durairaj, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are explaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lley is not correct. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant herein had imported V belts and procured 'pulleys' locally and wrongly availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid thereon. Since these goods were finished goods, these goods could not be considered to be 'inputs' as per the definition of the Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It was the further case of the Revenue that the appellants have not manufactured any final products using these goods as these were cleared under the same description a:s 'pulleys and V belts . Thus, according to the Revenue, the appellants were not manufacturing any goods and the activity that took place was trading of goods and hence availment of Cenvat credit on goods not used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal s decision in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs CGST CE Chennai Outer - 2015 (5) TMI 134-CESTAT CHENNAI as well as in the case of CCE Vs Vishal Precision Steel Tubes and Strips Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (3) TMI 1287-KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . In these circumstances, he prayed that impugned order may be set aside and appeal be allowed with consequential relief. 4. On behalf of the department, Ld. A.R Shri Arul C. Durairaj appeared who reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. It is not disputed that the appellant has cleared the final product viz. Belt Accessories (Pulleys and V Belts) after payment of excise duty. When the appellant has discharged the excise duty on final product then the department ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
