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 →

Primo Pick N Pack Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Bhopal

2015 (10) TMI 2397 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

CENVAT Credit - use of Capital goods in different premises - Suppression of facts - Held that:- The appellant shifted the machine to another premises near to the factory and returned the same within 180 days. The movement of machine as well as semi finished material from the factory and finished material from the rented premises are by challans. According to the appellant, the shifting was done only due to paucity of space, and that no job work was done. The Counsel for appellant submitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at machine was used in a premises near to the factory is not disputed. So also it was used for connected process of manufacture. The process in these premises was carried out by the appellant themselves. The machine was used by appellants for the production of final products. Thus the activity of appellants in using the machine (capital goods) can be said to be part of its manufacturing activities of final products in its registered factory premises. There is no justification for denying credit. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal has been filed challenging denial of cenvat credit on capital goods. 2. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE woven bags and also availed cenvat credit. The appellant purchased hydraulic bale press machine and availed cenvat credit on the same. A show cause notice was issued alleging that appellant wrongly availed cenvat credit on capital goods i.e. hydraulic bale press machine as the same was used by the appellant in another premises for short time besides being used in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

space in factory, another premises near the factory was taken on rent. This premises was used for stitching of HDPE bags out of semi finished material received from the factory. After stitching of bags, the bundle of HDPE bags are pressed in the Hydraulic bale press machine to reduce the size of the bundle. The goods are returned to the factory for clearance. The movement of goods is covered by challan and the same is returned within 180 days. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat credit has been rightly denied. According to him if the appellant was doing job work from another premises such premises of the appellant should also be registered. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The appellant shifted the machine to another premises near to the factory and returned the same within 180 days. The movement of machine as well as semi finished material from the factory and finished material from the rented premises are by challans. According to the appellant, the shifting was done only .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ging another person for doing the said work. That as no job worker is involved the provisions of Rule (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules do not apply. 7. The machine was removed from the factory to a nearby premises for finishing of the manufacturing process. Department does not have a case, that the movement of machine or that of semi finished goods or finished goods were suppressed. According to the appellant they described it as job work as there was no other procedure prescribed. But that everything .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

its registered factory premises. There is no justification for denying credit. In C.C.E.,Coimbatore Vs. vs Habasit Iakoka (P) Ltd.-2014 (306) ELT 455 (Mad.) the assessee had two units, one registered factory and another unit called Mother Roll Plant which was not registered. They shifted their machinery to their unit viz. Mother Roll Plant situated 500 Mts away, and at the time of removal did not obtain permission, nor reversed the credit taken on said capital goods. The Hon ble High Court obser .....

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