Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sri Eswari Auto Components (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV

2015 (10) TMI 1222 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Job work - Held that:- These units exclusively carry out the job work only for the appellants. The Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR provides for supply of capital goods for job work for manufacture of intermediate goods with the condition that it should be returned within 180 days failing which appellants have to pay equivalent amount of credit availed on the capital goods. It is seen from the worksheet submitted by the appellants, out of 13 machines, 5 machines .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

used for carrying out job work only for them. - capital goods credit which are installed in the captive mines are eligible for the entire capital goods credit even though they are located outside the factory. In the present case, there is no dispute that these two units belong to them and exclusively doing the job wok for main unit and they are not independent job workers. Therefore, by respectfully following above Apex Court decision and considering the fact that there was no recovery mechanis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

13 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant are procuring machines viz. Grinding Machine, Thread Rolling, Air Compressor, Power Press hydraulic Cutting etc. from various suppliers and installed in their Unit-II and Shop-II. These capital goods were installed in their unit-II and Shop-II for executing job work for the appellant's unit-I. Since the capital goods were not returned within 180 days as per the CCR, the adjudicating authority demanded and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r appellants main unit and the Unit-II 5 Kms. away from the main unit and Shop-II can be considered as same as appellants main unit. It is revenue-neutral as the appellants are eligible to take credit when they receive capital goods. Further he submits out of 13 machines installed, three were installed in Shop-II and 5 machines were installed in Unit-II. Another 5 machines were subsequently received back and cleared to their new plant on payment of duty of ₹ 5,80,885/- and submits a works .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Ld. A.R reiterates the findings. He submits that appellants not followed the procedure set out under Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR for removal of capital goods and not filed any declaration. The Director of the company had admitted their liability. He further submits that job worker's unit is not registered. He relied on Tribunal's decision in Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi-II - 2011 (269) ELT 225 (Tri.-Del.). 6. After hearing both sides, I find that the short issue in the present .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version