9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculty, after taking permission from DGFT, they cleared the capital goods and brought to their Aurangabad unit. They availed the cenvat credit of the CVD paid on such capital goods. The said capital goods were initially used in the manufacture of stators and motors which were being manufactured by the respondent on job work basis for some other customers and no duty was being paid by them as the duty was being paid by their customer on their final product. Later on, they reversed the entire cenvat credit taken on the capital goods and shifted the capital goods to their Bangalore plant. 3. Learned AR submitted that the demand has been issued on two counts. The first count is that the respondent has failed to produce a triplicate copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g produced from the said goods were not dutiable but since they were doing job work, no duty was paid by them and this fact has been very clearly mentioned in the RT-12 returns filed by them. It was also submitted that in any case, these machines were later on shifted to the Bangalore unit after reversing the credit availed by them and under these circumstances, no duty can be demanded from them. Moreover, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We note that the Commissioner in his order has given the following findings:- "7. So far as the admissibility of credit is concerned the Rule 57G(3) has clearly laid down that the credit of duty is admissible on the basis of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. However assessee has not cleared any goods on payment of duty from their unit. They only manufactured goods on job work for others and cleared them without payment of duty. Thus, the capital goods have not been utilized for manufacture of dutiable goods. So Modvat credit is not admissible. However, I find that the assessee has been submitting monthly RT-12 return with a forwarding letter wherein it was clearly mentioned that they have not started their production and only doing job work for other manufacturers. Thus it appears that there was no manifestation of their intention to evade duty in violation of Central Excise Rules & in conjunction with their 57T declaration. Therefore extended period under proviso to Section 11 A(l) is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
