9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and it is seen that no response was given by the Revenue on the application for common registration made by the appellant. The said application was neither accepted nor rejected. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the appellant had sought to follow all the requirements of the cenvat credit Rules, before availing the cenvat credit. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is also noticed that show cause notice has been issued more than 5 years after the availment of credit and therefore, is clearly beyond the limitation. Taking note of the fact that the said credit has already been reversed, there are no merit in the order, the same is set aside - appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 13817 of 2013-DB - A/10871/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s however granted a new registration (AAACE4645CXM002) in common for C-2 shed and 11-2 shed 6. 21.04.2007 06.06.2007 The Appellant Informed to the Assistant Commissioner that Capital goods were shifted to Unit -11 accordingly Cenvat Credit reversed from main Unit-I and availed in UNIT-IL (Running Page No-36 of the Appeal Paper Book) 7. 21.04.2007 Rs 83,18,567/- reversed by Eimco Elecon India Ltd Unit-I 8. 28.04.2007 Rs 83,18,567/- Cenvat Credit availed by Unit II (Eimco Elecon India Ltd.) 9. 31.12.2007 Eimco Elecon I Ltd (Unit-1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther pointed out that all the facts were known to the Revenue and therefore invoking extended period of limitation is not warranted. He pointed out that show cause notice has been issued on 22.04.2013 in respect of credit availed on 28.04.2007. He pointed out that the demand is also beyond the period of limitation. 3. Learned authorized representative relies on the impugned order. 4. We have noticed that the credit reversal on which has been demanded has already been reversed by the appellant and subsequently availed in Unit-I. The admissibility of said credit in Unit-I has already been decided by Tribunal vide order dated 02.01.2019 with following observations: 4. We have gone through rival submissions. We find that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alled in the place of manufacture of final products and not in the place outside the place of manufacture of final products. The Commissioner affirmed the order of the original authority. The respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 15-10-2004 allowed the appeal and directed for refund to be sanctioned. Before passing the impugned order, the Tribunal called for the report of the Commissionerate. The Tribunal, after noting the findings contained in the report of the Commissioner held that the Mother Roll Plant is for all practical purposes, part of the appellants main factory and it can be reasonably held that the subject capital goods were used by the respondent in the factory of production of final pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the factory of the respondent for the purpose of manufacture of final products. When the above said conclusion was inevitable, as held by the Tribunal, the respondent was entitled to avail Modvat credit duty paid on the capital goods concerned. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The question of law is therefore, answered in the negative and the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 10540 of 2005 is closed. Similarly in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd. (supra), in a dispute of similar nature, Tribunal observed as follows: 2 . The contention of the appellant is that both the units belong to the appellant and that manufacturing activities connected to the production of nut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jacent premises and used in relation of manufacture of final product in the registered premises. Since capital goods was used in the manufacture of final product for which excise duty is paid, in my view, credit is admissible from the date of installation and use of capital goods. Incorporation of the said premises is merely procedure requirement. The main requirement of availing Cenvat credit is that capital goods should be used in the manufacture of dutiable goods which is not under dispute. In view of this position, I am of the view that appellant was entitled for the Cenvat credit from the date of receipt and installation of the capital goods even though the part of the factory of the appellant was incorporated subsequently. As regard r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
