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 (8) TMI 445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng drew the attention of the bench only RG-23 Part-I register that the appellant have used the goods in question in and waste and scraps. Admittedly, the appellant received old and used machinery, apparently, which cannot be used in the final products. The appellant failed to produce any evidence of use of the items - No reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. : E/605/2009 - ORDER No. A/10025 / 2015 - Dated:- 5-1-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Appellant : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri J. Nagori, A.R. Per : Mr. P.K. Das; The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Textile Mach .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntiate the use of these inputs. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order beyond the scope of the adjudication order in so far as the adjudicating authority had not disputed the use of the machinery. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erroneously proceeded on the basis of that appellant has received dismantled machinery. It is also submitted that both the authorities below had not considered the RG 23 Pt.1 register for use of these machineries. 3. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for the revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that it has been alleged in the show cause notice that the appellant received old, used and dismantled parts as inputs for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 06 that the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence the job cards or any other private records, if any maintained in respect of use of said items. According to learned Advocate, the goods in question to be treated as inputs in the Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The input means all goods used in the factory in the manufacturer of the final products. According to the Revenue, the goods in question, machine assemblies in dismantled condition that too old, can not be their inputs for use in the manufacture of new taxable machinery. The main issue is that as to whether these goods can be used in the manufacture of final products. For proper appreciation, the relevant paragraph from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... machines and its further use. The different parts of the texturising machine runs in to hundreds and it is not known how many of these either one, two, ten or none have been used by the appellants in the manufacture of dutiable finished goods. Other parts which were never put into the use can not be said to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable finished goods. The appellants have themselves submitted that the said unused components parts were waste and scrap. I must state here that the said waste and scrap was not generated in the manufacture of finished goods as the same were never put into the use for manufacture of finished goods. Mere separation of old unusable components, parts etc. can not be said to have been an a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... private record to establish the use of these items in the final products. Learned Advocate during the course of hearing drew the attention of the bench only RG-23 Part-I register that the appellant have used the goods in question in and waste and scraps. Admittedly, the appellant received old and used machinery, apparently, which cannot be used in the final products. The appellant failed to produce any evidence of use of the items. So, I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cent .....

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