9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods was examined. It stands mentioned in the show cause notice that the components were issued from the store room to the production floor where assembly of the components/finished products takes place. Further, the notice referred to the statements of various senior personnels of the assessee company clearly deposing that the testing is done either during the manufacturing process or after the assembling of the components. The conclusion in the show cause notice is also to the effect that the practice of the component being followed is known to the assessee only during the process of testing in the assembly line, as prior testing of the component before assembling is not being done by the assessee. As such, we are of the view that the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.24/05-Cus., which requires payment of countervailing duty only. The CVD paid by them is being availed as credit. 3. During the course of manufacture of transmission equipment some of the parts so imported by them are found to be defective. Inasmuch as the said parts were under warranty period, a claim is lodged by the appellant to the centre of the same. The appellants claim is accepted, the imported defective parts are re-exported and compensation comes either by the way of cash payment or replacement of the parts. The replaced parts, when imported, are again cleared on payment of CVD and the credit of the said duty so paid is again taken by the assessee. 4. The dispute in the present appeal relates to credit of the countervailin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R Shri Promod Kumar appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the findings of the Commissioner, which are to the effect that the inputs are found defective, even before the same are to be used by the assessee and, as such, the assessees are under a legal liability to reverse the credit. 7. Having appreciated the submissions made by both sides and have been gone through the allegations made in the show cause notice, we find that the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the inputs are found defective or damaged prior to their issuance from the store are factually incorrect. It stands described in the show cause notice dated 21.03.2012 that the appellants factory was visited by the Officers and the process of manufacture of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P) Ltd. 2005 (184) ELT 194 (T) 2. Indus Theco Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad 2007 (212) ELT 85 (T) 3. Videocon International Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara-II 2009 (235) ELT 135(T) 4. Gujrat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madurai 2010 (258) ELT 574 (T) 5. Zydex Industries vs. CCE, Vadodara 2007 (219) ELT 602 (T) 6. Gujrat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE Madurai 2010 (258) ELT 7. Capital Industries vs. CCE, Delhi 2010 (261) ELT 572 (T) Further, the following decisions are to the effect that removal, as such means removal of the inputs before putting them to use:- 1. Cummins India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Pune-III 2007 (219) ELT 911 (Mum.) 2. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, 2012 (280) ELT 470 (Del.) 3. Shree Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
