Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (6) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ipt of the first intimation in 1997 & 1999. Without any investigation and proof of evidence contrary to the intimation and documents on record the adjudicating authority concluded that there is no receipt of capital goods in unit-I. I find that even though the capital goods were imported in the year 1997 and 1999, there is no record on availing credit either by unit I or unit II. Appellants have reversed the entire credit availed by while shifting on 30.08.99 to their unit-II, which is clearly reflected in the invoice dated 31.08.99 and the appellants have paid the duty by reversal of RG23 (c) part2 006 on 31.08.99. It is further supported by RT12 returns filed for the month of August'99 wherein both availment of debit of RG23 (c) part 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sued by the Registrar of Companies, Coimbatore dated 21.10.2005. Accordingly, change of cause title from UMS Radio Factory Limited to UMS Technologies Limited is allowed. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of. After dispensing miscellaneous applications the appeals are taken up for disposal. 2. Both the appeals are arising out of a common order in appeal and common adjudication order. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are registered with the Central Excise for manufacture of electronic items such as antenna, booster, stabilizer etc. They have two units ie., unit-I and unit-II both are located in two different premises at Coimbatore. Unit-I imported five machines during the year 1997-1999, two in 1997 and three in 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... importation of capital goods to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise under Rule 57(T) (1), it was duly acknowledge by the department. He submits that even though they have shifted the said capital goods to unit-II, the unit-I not availed any modvat credit. Only in July,99 when they received the capital goods from unit-II, they availed the credit on 02.08.99 and 30.08.99 and not utilized the credit as they have transferred the capital goods to unit-II in July'99 by reversing the entire credit. He submits copy of invoice No.2502013312, which was acknowledged by the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner. He further submits that they also filed monthly returns for the month of July and August, wherein the details of credit and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and 57(T) of CER. There is no dispute on the fact that both unit-I and unit-II of the appellants having common PAN No., filing common income-tax returns, common profit and loss accounts etc. The adjudicating authority and the lower appellate authority held that unit-I availed credit without receipt of capital goods in their factory. All the intimations find under Rule 57(T) were only created on paper. On perusal of records I find that the appellants duly intimated the Department prior to the importation of capital goods, which is mandatory for availing capital goods credit. They have also intimated that the said capital goods were shifted to unit-II which is on record. The allegation made in the adjudication order and in the impugned order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellants have paid the duty by reversal of RG23 (c) part2 006 on 31.08.99. It is further supported by RT12 returns filed for the month of August'99 wherein both availment of debit of RG23 (c) part 2 has been reflected in the returns. Rule 57Q (8) clearly stipulates removal of capital goods before being installed in the factory on payment of appropriate duty. In the present case, appellants have removed the capital goods from unit-I to unit-II without installing the same and reversed the entire credit. Therefore, reversal of credit is in conformity with Rule 57Q(8) of CER,1944. In the case of Pooja Forge Ltd (supra), on identical issue the DB of the Tribunal has allowed the credit on capital goods where the capital goods were removed fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates