|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 1430 Records
-
2023 (9) TMI 515
Benefit of area based exemption under N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - denial of benefit on the ground that the commercial production could not be commenced before 31.03.2010 - HELD THAT:- The invoice dated 31.03.2010 issued by the appellant for aluminium sections does not appear to be correct or pertain to products manufactured by it. Further, the industrial furnace acquired for manufacturing aluminium ingots from scrap itself was purchased by invoice dated 26.03.2010 and it crossed into the State of Uttarakhand on 29.03.2010 - It is found unthinkable that such an industrial furnace with accessories would have reached the factory on the same date and would have been installed, commissioned, tested, trials completed and commercial production also completed and the first invoice for commercially produced goods could have been raised on 31.03.2010 i.e. within two days.
There are strong force in the argument of the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue that under this invoice dated 31.03.2010 aluminium sections were sold which are extrusion products and there was no equipment for extrusion in the factory - In the absence of any contrary evidence Revenue’s contention is accepted that it was impossible for appellant to have produced 430 kg. of sections by consuming 136 kg. of aluminium scrap. Therefore, on the facts of the case it is not convincing that any commercial production was commenced on or before 31.03.2010.
It needs to be pointed out that the electricity consumption as per the electricity authorities was nil prior to April, 2010 and we find it hard to believe that the production could have taken place without any electricity at all. The appellant claimed that it had a diesel generator set for a few days, but was unable to provide any evidence to support its claim.
The impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference - the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 514
CENVAT Credit - input gone in manufacturing process destroyed due to electricity failure which has been cleared as scrap by the appellant on payment of duty - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been dealt by the various decisions of this Tribunal and this Tribunal has held that when the input has been issued for manufacture and during the course of manufacture, if input destroyed, the cenvat credit cannot be denied.
Reliance can be placed in COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH VS. CHANDIGARH PETRO FOAM (P) LTD. [2009 (1) TMI 942 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that Modvat/Cenvat credit is not deniable on inputs destroyed in fire accident when the fact that inputs were actually issued and thereafter destroyed in fire accident has been admitted by the department.
Thus, the cenvat credit on input, which has been destroyed due to power outage, cannot be denied to the appellant - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 513
Refund of amount pre-deposited as demand - question of unjust enrichment as envisaged under section 11B of CEA was not examined by the lower authorities - HELD THAT:- Any amount which the respondent had deposited during investigation or at any time including at the time of filing the appeal was merely a deposit under section 35F and not duties of excise under section 11B. Revenue was obliged to refund the same under section 35F along with applicable interest under section 35FF and it had not done so. Therefore, the respondent applied for refund citing section 11B. Section 11B is irrelevant to this case including the provisions of unjust enrichment in it.
The impugned order is correct and needs to be sustained - appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 453
Levy of Additional Excise Duty under Additional Duties Of Excise (Textiles And Textile Articles) Act, 1978 - date of manufacture of goods is decisive in determination of levy in case of Excise Duty - HELD THAT:- Both the lower authorities upheld the demand relying upon the decision in the matter of COLLECTOR OF C. EX., HYDERABAD VERSUS VAZIR SULTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD. [1996 (2) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] in which it was held that even if goods were manufactured prior to the date of the same becoming dutiable, but were cleared later, the same become subject of levy of duty from the date of levy and such goods shall not be leviable to Excise Duty, if produced earlier. In short, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is point and date of levy which is important and not the point or date of clearance of the goods to determine, if the goods manufactured were dutiable or not - The Hon’ble Apex Court also held the recovery of duty according to the “date of removal” does not make removal to be the taxable event for Central Excise.
While it is true from the analysis of aforesaid decisions that the impugned goods i.e. Yarn in this instance were taxable as on the date they were manufactured as levy was subsisting. On the date of clearance, on withdrawal of levy, the applicable rate of A.E.D had become “Nil”. Therefore as, on the date of clearance “Nil” rate of A.E.D. shall be applied to the goods cleared.
The demand does not sustain. Appeal is therefore allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 452
Recovery of alleged excess grant of rebate - in terms of Notification No.02/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011, Excise Duty in excess of 5% was exempted whereas the appellants paid duty at the rate of 10% - HELD THAT:- A conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 5 and the notification cited above reveals that the impugned goods are partially exempted; a manufacturer has no choice to pay duty when it is wholly exempted; however, when the item is partially exempted and that there is no prescription that the manufacturer shall not pay duty at the higher rate. Further, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Notification No.19/2004 provides for the payment of rebate of “duty paid” and not the “duty payable”. Therefore, it is found that there is no reason as to why the contention of the appellants should not be accepted - the issue of availability of choice, of not opting for an exemption notification, to the manufacturer has been decided by the Tribunal in many cases.
Tribunal in the case of BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VERSUS CCE., MUMBAI-IV [2000 (6) TMI 98 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] held that It is settled law that an exemption has to be claimed and that the burden of proving that he falls within the exemption falls upon the person who claims it. In such cases therefore we must independently of our earlier reasoning come to the conclusion that there is always an element of choice in availing of an exemption notification.
As far as availability of rebate is concerned, the notification providing for rebate talks of “duty paid” rather than “duty payable” and as such a manufacturer-exporter has a choice to pay the duty as per the basic rate or after availing the partial exemption and rebate shall be granted on the “duty paid”. We find that this issue was settled by the Tribunal in the case of AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., RAJKOT [2009 (4) TMI 655 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD. [2011 (4) TMI 1394 - SC ORDER] - Tribunal observed that The very fact that no provision has been made in Section 5A while amending the same to prohibit manufacturer from paying duty in case of unconditional partial exemption at higher rate, the appellant cannot be found fault with for having paid higher rate of duty. Further it is to be observed that having advised the appellant to reclassify the product under a different heading holding the same ineligible for a partial exemption, the departmental officers should not have rejected the refund claim.
Thus, the appellants are eligible for the rebate of the “duty paid” irrespective of the fact as to whether a partial exemption was applicable to the impugned goods.
The appellants further contended that the Department has not appealed against the rebate order and no higher authority has set aside the same; therefore, the rebate alleged to have been erroneously granted cannot be demanded by way of a show-cause notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We find that the Tribunal in the case of SHREE NATH INDUSTRIES VERSUS C.C.E., JAMMU [2018 (5) TMI 195 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] held that In this case, it is the case of the Revenue itself that they were not required to pay duty, therefore, the excess amount paid by the appellant is merely a deposit not a duty. Hence, the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, is not applicable to the case. In that circumstances, the appellant is not required to pay the excess refund claimed by them.
The appellants have already paid duty at the rate of 10%. In case, they are to pay back the additional 5% rebate, Department requires to credit the excess 5% duty paid into CENVAT account. Since, CENVAT account is no more in existence; it is a foregone conclusion that the refund, if any, requires to be paid in cash - no purpose will be served if the rebate, alleged to have claimed and sanctioned in excess, is recovered and the 5% of excess duty paid is refunded by way of cash refund. Such an act would be not only revenue neutral but would be a futile academic exercise.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 451
Inoperability of CENVAT credit in relation to ‘job work’ - coverage by scheme for discharge duties of central excise at the final stage of manufacture by the principal as set out in notification no. 214/86-CE dated 25th March 1986 - Exempt goods or not - HELD THAT:- The Larger Bench of the Tribunal has, in STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], held that Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in the manufacture of final product, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provision of Rule 57C.
The impugned order is contrary to settled law and must be set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 450
Classification of goods - construction chemicals - impugned products are classifiable under Chapter Sub-Heading 3824 40 10 or under Chapter Sub-Heading 3824 90 90 - products are required to be assessed/valued under the provisions of Section 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - HELD THAT:- Appellants in their written submissions dated 1.7.2013 have stated that Dr. R. Sundaravadivelu, FNAE, Professor of Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras had certified regarding the characteristics of each product and there is also letter dated 28.6.2013 from Dr. R. Nagendra, Technical Director from Civil-Aid Technoclinic Pvt. Ltd. wherein technical opinion is given in some of the products - Therefore, the adjudicating authority are directed to consider all the test reports/technical opinions placed on record by the appellant along with the opinion given by IIT, Madras before concluding the classification of the above products.
Since the valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 depends on the classification of the products, the same may be considered after redetermining the classification based on the technical reports.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (9) TMI 411
Refund claim - payment of amount equivalent to the CENVATE credit attributable to inputs and input services used in relation to the manufacture of exempted clearance of petroleum product namely Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) - HELD THAT:- The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. JAMNAGAR [2023 (8) TMI 121 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] while dismissing the Tax Appeal held that no question of law much less any substantial question of law can be said to be arising.
Appeal stands dismissed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 410
Liability of Excise duty - waste and scrap generated at the facility of the ‘job worker’ - HELD THAT:- The order of the Tribunal in their own appeal M/S. VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I [2023 (3) TMI 1401 - CESTAT MUMBAI] pertains to the immediate preceding period where reliance placed in COMMISSIONER OF CGST BHIWANDI VERSUS VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD [2018 (5) TMI 1050 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that in case of the sister unit of the appellant tribunal held that the appellants were not liable to discharge duty on waste and scrap generated at job worker's end.
The order impugned does not survive which is set aside to allow the appeal.
-
2023 (9) TMI 409
CENVAT Credit - inputs - raw materials like MS plates, MS bars for manufacture of finished goods known as MS Fish Plates and Metal Liner which are supplied to Indian Railways - chartered accountants certificate not considered - period 2005 to May 2006 - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant has provided proper evidence in the form of Chartered Engineer’s Certificate wherein by way of a flow chart, the Chartered Engineer has specified as to where and how the goods in question have been used within the factory premises of the appellants. The Adjudicating authority has not given proper consideration to such documentary evidence provided by the appellant. When the appellant produced the Certificate from a qualified professional, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to consider and pass a proper order. If the certificate issued is not found to be acceptable, the same is required to be rebutted by the Adjudicating Authority which has not been done in this case.
The High Court of Kerala in the case of CADBURY INDIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, [2014 (12) TMI 403 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has held While a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant or a Cost Accountant would normally suffice to discharge that burden, if the revenue authorities have any doubt with regard to the genuineness of the certificate or the correctness of it, it is for them to insist on further documents from the claimant to support the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant or the Cost Accountant.
The Department has not rebutted the documentary evidences brought in by the appellant - Appeal allowed on merits.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- All the details of Cenvat credit taken by them have been properly disclosed in the ER-1 Returns. There is no allegation that the goods in question were not received in the premises of the appellant. Hence, the question of alleging suppression with intent to evade payment excise duty will not arise. Accordingly, demand in respect of the extended period set aside - appeal allowed even on time bar.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (9) TMI 408
Irregular availment of credit on MS plates - Process amounting to manufacture - processes undertaken by the appellant on MS plates - violation of Rule3(1) read with Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position in law that if Cenvat Credit is availed on goods (inputs) that are subjected to certain processes, that do not amount to manufacture, and if such goods are cleared on payment of excise duty, then there is no requirement for reversal of Cenvat Credit availed on the inputs. It is also the appellants contention that even if it is assumed that the processes undertaken viz cleaning, cutting and drilling of MS plates do not amount to manufacture, Cenvat Credit on the inputs is essentially available to them. The fact of clearance of such goods to their sister unit on payment of excise duty is evident from records - it is also noted that the amount of duty paid by the appellant is higher than the amount of credit availed.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS AJINKYA ENTERPRISES [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], had upheld the Tribunal order, wherein an identical contention in the context of decoiled HR/CR coils cut into specific size was concerned with and the Tribunal had upheld the availment of CENVAT credit on HR/CR coils and its utilization for payment of duty on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared.
As the question of law as in the impugned appeal is no more res integra and has been settled, by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EX. & CUS., SURAT-III VERSUS CREATIVE ENTERPRISES [2008 (7) TMI 311 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], there can be no question of levy of duty and if duty is levied, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the manufacturer.
There is no merit in the adjudication order passed by the learned Commissioner and it being bereft of merit needs to be set aside - Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 403
Recovery of Excise duty alongwith interest - imposition of penalty of ₹. 5000 under rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - clearance of ‘dyed yarn’ without complying with condition in N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 1st March 2002 - HELD THAT:- The principle enshrined within the scheme of central excise, intended to tax all – including intermediate goods – manufacture but for convenience is excluded from levy at each of the stages subject to duty being paid at some stage by the manufacturer and subject to procedure as spelt out in rule 16A, rule 16B and rule 16C of Central Excise Act, 1944. In such circumstances, a separate notification by the Central Government, in concord with tax policy formulation, must be presumed to have a separate intent so as not to be superfluous. Hence, subject to condition that yarn emerging therefrom is exempted from duty, it is only required that the finished goods should have been manufactured either out of duty paid ‘textured yarn’ or ‘twisted yarn’ and that CENVAT Credit on such inputs had not been availed. It is not the case of Revenue that credit had been availed.
In identical circumstances, it has been held by the Tribunal in re Shreekar Polyester Pvt Ltd [2017 (1) TMI 25 - CESTAT MUMBAI] that there is no condition that if doubled yarn is subject to the process of dyeing, the dyed yarn is entitled for exemption only if at the doubling stage duty had been discharged. Moreover, the appellants contended that even if the duty is paid at the doubling stage, Cenvat credit can be availed for clearance of dyed yarn and in effect there would be revenue neutrality. In these circumstances, the appellant’s interpretation of condition 19(ii) appears to be correct.
Thus, nothing further remains to be decided in the dispute - the appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
-
2023 (9) TMI 356
Rate of abatement - Works Contract - Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - petitioner has not filed any reply and thereby has not responded to the notice - Inspite of three opportunities, the petitioner did not appear before the Authorities - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner has engaged in works contract. The respondent has also recorded that the petitioner is engaging in works contract especially in relation to the construction of check dams, repairing of irrigation tanks, construction of Government schools and Government Polytechnic, etc. - As per Rule 2(ii)(A) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, if the petitioner is considered as individual, the respondent ought to impose only 40%. Hence the respondent has not granted the abatement of 60% provided for the work contract. If the said rule is applied then the respondent is not empowered to impose 100% tax.
If the respondents have considered the petitioner as registered under the Company’s Act then the petitioner is entitled to pay only 50% as per the S.No.9 of the Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Under S.No.9 it states that “in respect of service provided or agreed to be provided in service portion in execution of works contract”, then “50% ought to be paid by the person providing service and 50% ought to be paid by the person receiving the service”. Since the respondent has imposed 100% service without invoking the Rule and Notification, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned Assessment order, dated 22.03.2023.
This Court is inclined to quash the assessment order. The petitioner is directed to submit his reply, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the respondents shall grant personal hearing - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 355
Less recovery of duties of central excise on clearances - Entitlement of concessional rate of duty - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the grounds of appeal that the statutory requirement of monthly removals mandated by the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) precluded any other option and any detriment arising from computation of entitlement to monthly computation of entitlement for domestic clearance would be inequitable. That certain classes of units are entitled to such periodicity of clearance rules out rigidity of approach in computing entitlements. There is no reason to deny such computation to the appellant herein.
Demand relating to ‘domestic clearance’ at full rate of duty - HELD THAT:- On the dispute limited to ₹. 7,82,337, it would appear that the justification offered by appellant for the appropriate value of clearances has not been appreciated by the lower authorities - there is a casual dismissal of the submission.
The veracity of the entitlement for clearance at concessional rate of duty, as submitted by the appellant, needs to be carried out and the submissions of the appellant on the value of the clearances effected at ‘full rate of duty’ need consideration. These are to be undertaken by the original authority.
Impugned order set aside - matter on remand.
-
2023 (9) TMI 354
CENVAT Credit - inputs - manufacture took place or not - HELD THAT:- Even if the goods cleared by the appellant have not undergone manufacture, the consequent non-excisability would render the credit as not having been availed. It would, therefore, appear that the issue in dispute is limited to taking of credit on goods that are not ‘inputs’ as defined in rule 2 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
In re Ajinkya Enterprises [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that in the present case, the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from the factory of the assessee on payment of duty has neither been reversed nor it is held that the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid at the time of clearing the decoiled HR/CR coils.
In effect, therefore, the utilization of credit for cleared products is tantamount to reversal and, hence, recovery of such credit is an exercise in superfluity. These decisions were not available with the adjudicating authority then and has settled the law on recovery thereupon. Learned Authorized Representative has suggested that actual availment and corresponding substantive reversal need to be verified.
Matter remanded back to the original authority for such verification and to limit recovery, if any, only to such credit as is in excess of that availed on procurement of the three products.
-
2023 (9) TMI 353
Time limitation - reversal of CENVAT credit while opting SSI exemption - appellant rectified their mistake by reversing CENVAT credit - HELD THAT:- The discrepancy regarding the reversal of CENVAT credit while opting SSI exemption came to the Department at the time of Audit and the appellant reversed the cenvat credit along with interest for intervening period. In that circumstances, there was no requirement to issue the show-cause notice to the appellant - the proceeding against the appellant is not sustainable - SCN is barred by limitation.
The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by confirming reversal of cenvat credit by the appellant and the payment of interest thereof for the intervening period.
-
2023 (9) TMI 352
Rebate claim - unjust enrichment - rejection on the ground that the export goods were manufactured using imported duty free inputs - adjudicating authority, though sanctioned the refund has ordered to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund observing that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the overseas buyer - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is held by the authorities below that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the foreign buyer - the logic of such view taken by the adjudicating authority that the duty has been passed on to a buyer outside India; i.e., outside the jurisdiction of the Central Excise Act, cannot be understood. This apart it is brought out from records and also explained by the Ld. counsel that the Excise duty is paid on FOB value and the export invoice reflected in the shipping bill is on CIF value.
The excise duty is paid only on FOB value and therefore the appellant has not collected excise duty from the foreign buyer. After verification of the records and appreciating the evidence, it is convincing that the incidence of duty has been borne by the appellant. In such circumstances, the order passed by the authorities below directing to credit the sanctioned refund to Consumer Welfare Fund is not just and proper.
The impugned order is modified to the extent of sanctioning the refund of Rs.3,01,002/- and the appellant is eligible to receive refund of this amount - Appeal allowed in part.
-
2023 (9) TMI 294
Application seeking condonation of delay - Recovery of erroneous refund / irregular Cenvat credit availed - Demand of duty with interest - allegation of misuse of Area based exemption - HELD THAT:- These special leave petitions are disposed reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to file a review petition(s) before the High Court, if so advised.
The application for seeking condonation of delay would not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
-
2023 (9) TMI 293
Quantum of duty which the appellant / petitioner was liable to pay in terms of the provisions contained in the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 - Rule 8 of the CTUT Rules 2010 is ultra vires to Section 3A of CE Act or not - HELD THAT:- It is deemed appropriate to note at the outset that the challenge to Rule 8 of the CTUT Rules 2010 was founded solely upon the Second Proviso to Section 3A(2)(b). The appellant / petitioner does not question the authority of the Union Government to either prescribe the manner in which the the annual capacity of production may be determined nor does it question its right to formulate a factor relevant for the purposes of estimating production in a factory.
As is manifest from a reading of Section 3A(2)(a), the Union Government is empowered not only to prescribe the manner for determination of annual capacity of production of a factory, the said provision by way of a legal fiction stipulates that the capacity of production as determined in accordance with the Rules shall be “deemed” to be the annual production of goods in that factory. The computation of annual production and the same being computed by virtue of a statutory deemed fiction does not owe its genesis to Rule 8. The said legal fiction stands incorporated in Section 3A(2)(a) itself.
The challenge to Rule 8 must also fail when tested on the anvil of the Second Proviso to Section 3A(2)(b). It becomes pertinent to note that the Second Proviso deals with a contingency where the “factor relevant” is altered or modified at any time during the year. It is in such a situation alone that the annual production is liable to be redetermined on a proportionate basis. However, and as is evident from the recital of facts in the preceding parts of this decision, the “factor relevant” as prescribed by Rule 4 remained unaltered. The quantification of duty liable to be paid by a manufacturer remained constantly during the period in question hinged upon the number of packing machines in the factory of a manufacturer - the Tribunal has abjectly failed to advert to the deeming fiction which stands introduced by Rule 8.
It is unable to hold Rule 8 as being ultra vires Section 3A nor there are any error in the view as expressed by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (9) TMI 292
Denial of CENVAT Credit - input or not - Mirror Assembly (left & right) and Sari Guard - whether or not the mirror assembly (right & left) and sari guard undisputedly sold by the appellant alongwith Motor Cycle fall within the purview of the definition of Input eligible for cenvat credit under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
HELD THAT:- This issue is no more res-integra and has been considered by various benches of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case and cenvat credit on these two items have been allowed - reliance can be placed in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I VERSUS HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. [2014 (10) TMI 931 - CESTAT NEW DELHI].
It is found that these two items fall under the definition of ‘input’ as defined under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because these two items were cleared along with the motor cycle from the factory by paying the excise duty on the final products - as per the Motor Vehicle Act, it is a statutory obligation of the manufacturers of two wheelers to clear the motor cycle from the factory with mirror assembly (right & left) and sari guard.
The impugned order is not sustainable in law and is set aside - appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
