9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or vehicles and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs as well as capital goods. During the period from September, 1995 to March, 1998 the appellants received certain capital goods and took Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on these capital goods. During the period December, 1997 to May, 1998, appellants shifted certain capital goods from their factory premises to another factory premises of M/s. Sun Steering Wheels Ltd. The appellants reversed the credit in their RG-23 C Part-II in respect of the capital goods shifted to the other factory. Thereafter, on 29-3-1999, the appellants had again taken, the Modvat credit which were earlier reversed without receiving the capital goods in their factory. A show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six months as held by the Commissioner for availing the credit is not applicable in respect of the credit on capital goods. 5. The appellants also contended that as per the provisions of Rule 57S(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, the capital goods can be removed without payment of duty to their job workers for manufacture of goods on their behalf. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that appellants taken the credit after reversing the same at the time of removal of the capital goods which is not permissible. The Revenue is relying upon the provisions of Rule 57U(6) of the Central Excise Rules to submit that manufacturer take credit can be a specified duty only, if, the capital goods are received in the factory premises under the cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of M/s. Sun Steering Wheels Ltd. In such a situation, the credit taken on 29-3-1999 is not admissible to the appellants. The contention of the appellant is also that they are entitled for the credit in respect of the capital goods which are sent to their job workers under Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules. As the appellants had not followed the procedure provided under Rule 57S(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, therefore, we find no merits in this plea of the appellants. In the show cause notice, there was a specific allegation that appellants had wrongly taken the credit in respect of the capital goods, therefore, we find no force in the arguments of the appellants that the adjudication order is beyond the scope of the show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
