TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dran, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.R. Savant, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri U. Raja Ram, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These two appeals are directed against the Orders-in-Appeal No. 85/2008 dated 8-8-2008 368/2009 dated 22-9-2009. Since both the appeals raise a common issue, they are being disposed off by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturers of electric stampings. They procured AC Motors/Generators from M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. and availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid on such Motors/Generators. Lower authorities on scrutiny of the ER-1 Returns, came to the conclusion that these were neither capital goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 211 (Tribunal) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 15 (Tri.-Del.) and also on the decision of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CCE v. Rane NSK Steering Systems Ltd. - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 354 (P H) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 327 (P H). 4. Learned DR on the other hand would submit that the appellant herein is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit on AC Motors/Generators. It is his submission that the appellant is a manufacturer of electric stamping, in that process, the appellant could not use the AC Motors/Generators. It is his submission that the said goods cannot be considered as inputs or capital goods used in or in relation to the manufacturing of the final products as provided under Rule 3 of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of clearance of items. That the items were not inputs are also not of much consequence inasmuch as, the appellant could have also dealt with these items as a trader and Modvat provisions would allow the same treatment. Secondly, since equal (credit) or more amounts have been returned at the time of removal of these parts, the requirement in law of reversing credit at the time of clearance of inputs as such remains satisfied. It is well settled that when there is no duty demand, penalties are not attracted." 5.2 It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that an identical situation arose before the Division Bench. The decision of the Division Bench is binding on me. 6. Further, I find that the decision of the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et result is that there is no prejudice caused to the revenue and the entries have been cancelled by each other. Therefore, we do not find that the aforementioned question is a substantial question of law requiring our determination. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 6.1 It can be seen from the above reproduced judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, that once an amount is paid as Excise Duty by the appellant, the net result is that there is no prejudice caused to the Revenue. In view of this, I find that the amount of duty demandable from the appellant and the interest payable thereof and the consequent penalties can be only to the extent of the duty amount arising as difference, between the credit taken and the duty paid on the AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
