Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V

2015 (10) TMI 2348 - CESTAT 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 in the case of Jolly Board Ltd. (2014 (3) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI) is differe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 - Final Order Nos. A/3264-3265/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 4-8-2015 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHAR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 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 inputs which were used in the manufacture of the aforesaid products. They paid 10% .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,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, the appellant have preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uts 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 tractors and aggregates for tractors were exempted; provisions of Rule 6(1) of the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ry; 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 appellant and Mr. Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for the Revenue. 4. Mr. Ramanan explain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ccordingly, 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)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, neither any duty is payable nor the sub-rule .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 product is not permissible under law. As the assessee has paid 8% of the pri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 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 exported, it was held that taxes are not to be exported as per the Government .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version