TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on" - The manufacture had certified that machine is designed to handle carbonated/aerated soft drinks by software changes and minor adjustments. The certificate never said that the object can be achieved only after modification. The certificate did not use the word 'modification' which has crept in the order of the Tribunal. More so, before us now the appellant has filed certificate dated 25.09.2009 which indicates that no modification in the machine can be done in India since it is manufactured at Germany and imported in India - Thus, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal dated 01.05.2008 and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law taking into consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to why demand should not be issued and recovery be made under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest be not demanded as well as penalty. Show cause notice also mentioned that as to why extended period of 'five years' as provided under proviso to Section 11(A)(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be invoked as they have suppressed the facts as mentioned above and availed credit on duty of capital goods exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The Commissioner Central Excise vide order dated 15.11.2006 confirmed the demand directing for payment of interest as well as imposition of penalty for which judgment was appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the benefit of CENVAT credit. He submits that credit can be denied as per Rule 6 sub-rule (4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 only when machine is exhaustively used for manufacturing of exempted goods. Sri Shailendra Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the certificate dated 25.09.2009 has been placed before this Court in this appeal and when the matter was heard by the Tribunal it had no benefit of the certificate. He submits that if reliance is being placed on the said certificate, the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Rule 6 of sub-rule (4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which is relevant in the present case whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that machine is designed to handle carbonated/aerated soft drinks by software changes and minor adjustments. The certificate never said that the object can be achieved only after modification. The certificate did not use the word 'modification' which has crept in the order of the Tribunal. More so, before us now the appellant has filed certificate dated 25.09.2009 which indicates that no modification in the machine can be done in India since it is manufactured at Germany and imported in India. As submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, ends of justice would be served in setting aside the order of Tribunal dated 01.05.2008 remitting the matter back before the Tribunal for consideration afresh. Thus, the appeal is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
