Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (2) TMI 591 - CESTAT, NEW DELHICenvat/Modvat - rejection of refund application - Two units with in same factory - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the record and submissions of both sides that there is only one juridical person in the present case, i.e. Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. There is no separate legal standing for the yarn manufacturing facility, even though it is being referred to by the appellant as Mahabir Syntex. A perusal of the ground plan makes it clear that both lines of production are situated in the same factory premises and the generators are supplying electricity to both the lines of production. In this legal and factual situation, the finding in the order that the two units are separate entities cannot be upheld. Claim for Modvat credit, the specific provision in the Rule is for “a manufacturer” to take credit of duty paid on any input received “in the factory”. As we have already noted, there is only one manufacturer with two lines of production and one factory. Therefore, credit originally taken by the appellant was entirely in terms of the Rule and the lower authorities were in error in directing the appellant to return the credit amount. Thus, the appeal succeeds and is allowed after setting aside the impugned order. Credit which was returned in cash by the appellant shall be returned to the appellant in cash.
|