9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of the original adjudicating authority confirming demand of Rs. 3,84,000/- and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC on the ground of limitation. 2. The facts are explained briefly. (a) The respondents during the period from April 2003 to March, 2004 had taken credit of duty paid on capital goods amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no basis for bona fide belief that credit is admissible, since the capital goods were not received, no intimation was given by the respondents to the Department about the dispatch of the goods, receipt of the same and therefore, the extended period was rightly invoked by the original adjudicating authority and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside. He also stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Considering all the rival submissions it is noticed that in this case, admittedly, the dies were lying with the job worker since 1980 and at that point of time, the credit of duty paid on the capital goods was not admissible as Cenvat credit and there was no procedure requiring dies to be transferred to job worker under challan or by following any procedure under Central Excise law. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that capital goods are used by the job worker for the respondents and they are eligible to send the same. Therefore, it is felt that the stand taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that extended period cannot be invoked does not need to be interfered with. Further, the judgment of the Tribunal in C.C.E., Pondicherry v. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. holding that duty paid by the job worker on repair charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
