Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 991 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - clearance to sister unit - CENVAT credit - demand of duty was on the ground that the differential customs duty paid by the MUL to the Customs constituted additional consideration in the hands of appellants - Held that: - The assessment at the material time was done in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and in terms of Rule 8 the appellant had included the cost of the said machine in the form of leased rentals in the assessable value. In terms of Rule 8, the cost of the machine of the appellant did not change as a result of the payment of differential duty by MUL to the Customs. The cost for the appellant remained the lease rental originally fixed. In view of the above, it cannot be said that there was any flow of additional consideration to the appellant or there was an enhanced cost of the appellant - it was the liability of MUL to fulfill the export obligation under EPCG scheme, the expenses on account of non fulfillment of the export obligation were not the liability of the appellant. CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the invoices issued by MUL is neither a supplementary invoices nor a original invoice for the capital goods and therefore is not a valid document - Held that: - it is not in challenge that the said capital goods were installed and used by the appellant in their factory. That being the case, non-filing of declaration and not accounting the same in RG-23 Part-I register is only the procedural defect for which credit cannot be denied. The ground that MUL was never in possession of capital goods and hence should not have been issued the invoices is without merit and not legal practice and, therefore, is discarded. The ground that the credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules can be taken only in respect of the goods received in the factory on or after 1.3.2002 is misplaced in so far as in the instant case, the credit has been taken on supplementary invoices, which is a valid document in terms of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|