9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Jamshedpur were an assessee under the Central Excise Act, engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle in April 1998, Excavator manufacture of business was hived off to another, holding unit manufacturing in the same premises. On 30-3-2000, the Axle Transmission assembly unit was similarly hived as subsidiaries. However manufacturing continued in same premises. 1.3 On the day of this slici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out units to M/s. Telco of Excavators to outsiders was on payment of duty, at approximate rate value which was not questioned. 2.1 Appellants rely on Jamna Auto, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 181; Metzeller Automotive Profiles India Pvt. Ltd., 2004 (167) E.L.T. 208; Whirlpool of India Ltd. [2003 (58) RLT 241 (T)] to claim that no duly or other liability on them is called for in the facts of this case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds proceedings on inputs, it is not contested that Excavators were finally removed on payment of duty. Reversal of credit on the inputs, work in progress, semi-finished goods, following Jamna Auto the other decision therefore induces us to hold that proceedings in respect of inputs in this case cannot be upheld. 2.6 The inputs, in work in progress, finished goods were finally routed only to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue; even though it was not strictly called for if Rule 57F(3) or (4) procedures were followed for the movement/accounting of the inputs. In any case there is no case for duty demands on M/s. Telco, as made out. 2.7 Since there is no determination of duty/credit recovery, the penalty as imposed is not called for is to be set aside. 2.8 We find force in the arguments of bar of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
