9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri H. K. Thakur, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per M. Veeraiyan Member (T) (for the Bench)] - These two appeals filed by the same appellant involve a common issue relating to different periods and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: (a) The appellant has several manufacturing units. The dispute relates to valuation of goods which are transferred inter-units and consequent availment of Cenvat credit by the recipient units. The appellant has two of their units at Padi and Polambakkam (both near Chennai), wherein they manufacture items like lined s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.7.2000 value of the goods transferred from their Chennai units was being provisionally assessed in terms of Rule 6 (b)(1) or Rule 6(b)(2) of Valuation Rules and from 1.7.00, the duty was being paid in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. For the entire period, the assessment was being made provisional, as valuation of some of the inputs were not final and that addition of 30% of the provisional cost of production was only with a view to take care of any possible escalation in the price of inputs. There was no accumulated credit with the Chennai units which could not be utilised by the Chennai units. They have paid substantial amounts of duty from PLA in respect of each of the Chennai units. He also submits that there has been no dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturer. 4.4. He contends that there is no dispute that the inputs procured from the two units were inputs eligible for credit, duty for which credit was taken by the appellants. Further, the duty so availed as credit was also deposited by the two units in the government account. The inputs received have been used by the appellants in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable finished goods. 4.5. The appellants availed credit on the strength of the invoice issued by the two units as manufacturer. The appellants were entitled to avail the credit of duty paid by the two units on the various goods cleared by them. The impugned order denying credit on the ground that the credit should be restricted to the duty payable on the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of clearances made from their Chennai units. We do not find any allegation or finding of any fraudulent intention in declaring a slightly higher value for their clearance from their Chennai units to Gurgaon units. What ever duty was paid by the Chennai units was taken as credit. It has been claimed that the units in Chennai as well as Gurgaon have paid substantial amounts from PLA. We find that the entire exercise is revenue neutral and does not involve any fraud, or manipulation etc. We also note that there is no revision of any assessment in respect of Chennai units warranting variation of credit taken by the Gurgaon units. 7. Therefore, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. (Operative part pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
