New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 2348 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (10) TMI 2348 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 123 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Refund of duty paid earlier on export of goods - Exemption of Basic Excise Duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-CE as amended by Notification No. 23/2004-CE dated 8.7.2004 - original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims on the grounds that the appellants were not eligible for availing CENVAT Credit for inputs used in the final product in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - held that:- Issue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bsequent export of the goods by the assessee. Hence, in view of the fact that the same tractors were admittedly brought back in the factory of the appellant and after testing etc. were cleared for export under Bond and by virtue of Rule 6(6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules the provisions of sub-rule (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) of Rule 6 are inapplicable. Accordingly, the amounted deposited become refundable - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/1066 & 1067/10 - Fina .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Excise Duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-CE as amended by Notification No. 23/2004-CE dated 8.7.2004. The appellants were however required to discharge Industrial Cess and Education Cess on such tractors at the time of their clearance from their factory premises. The appellants also manufacture IC Engine, transmission assemblies and other parts of tractors on which Excise Duty @ 16% ad valorem and Education Cess @ 2% was paid, The appellant availed credit of the duty paid on common input .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eafter, the appellants filed refund claims of ₹ 63,050/- and ₹ 79,413/- respectively (the duty paid at the time of clearance in DTA for testing). The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims on the grounds that the appellants were not eligible for availing CENVAT Credit for inputs used in the final product in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not apply. 2.1 Being aggrieved, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

facture of aggregates like IC engines and transmission assembly and these inputs are further captively consumed in the manufacture of tractors. As the aggregates are parts of tractors these were exempted when captively consumed in the manufacture of the final product. Therefore, I am of the view that provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not be applicable in this case and CENVAT Credit was not available on inputs used in the manufacture of tractors as both the tractor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a) of the said Cenvat Credit Rules and the tractors brought back to the factory; the expression job work was broad enough to cover testing activities. The reversal of CENVAT Credit was not warranted on tractors cleared for testing, as credit was not available on inputs used in tractors in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, question of cash refund would not arise. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard Mr. Ravi L. Ramanan, Sr. GM of the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed and taxable output and no separate account is maintained for the inputs. Accordingly, as required the appellant cleared two tractors for the purpose of testing by paying 10% of the assessable value by way of reversal of CENVAT Credit. These tractors were after the test brought back to the factory under proper intimation to the Revenue in Form D3. Thereafter, the two tractors were cleared for export under Bond. As the appellant had cleared the tractors for export under Bond and under Rule 6(6) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

taken and paid 8% of the value of exempted tractors at the time of clearance on the ground that they were taking Modvat credit in respect of engines used in the exempted tractors also. The Excise authority have demanded the return of the credit taken on the engines used in the exempted tractor on the ground that Modvat credit was not available in respect of inputs used in production of exempted goods. This Tribunal held that denial of Modvat credit as well as levy of 8% on the finished exempted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7CC(1) on the exempted final product, it was held that CENVAT Credit could not be denied on exempted goods. 5. The learned AR relies on the finding in the impugned order and also states that this Tribunal in the case of Jolly Board Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad 2015 (321) ELT 502 (Tri-Mum) in the matter of refund claim under Notification No. 5/2006 where the appellant availed input credit on payment of duty which was utilized in manufacturing of exempted goods, which were e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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