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

2015 (11) TMI 356 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 356 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 938 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Availment of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - MS Roads - Held that:- Issue was raised that M.S. Rod is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) have decided revenue s appeal going completely beyond the show cause notice on the ground that the tote boxes which are manufactured within the factory are exempted from payment of excise duty therefore in terms of 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

in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacture” In view of this provisions in the present case M.S. Rod have been used in the manufacture of the capital goods and the capital goods in the manufacture of the final product, Cenvat credit on M.S. Rod is admissible as input. In the fact of the present case, it is undisputed that the final product manufactured by the appellant is cleared on payment of duty and no exemption was availed, therefore contentio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

DER Per : Ramesh Nair The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(07)08/2010 dated 8/1/2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Aurangabad, wherein Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original dated 30/6/2009 and allowed the Revenue s appeal. 2. The fact of the case is that appellant has availed Cenvat Credit in respect of M.S. Rod which was used for making tote box which is used for keeping and carrying inputs and finished goods during the course of manufacture in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad vide order-in-original dated 30/6/2009 wherein adjudicating authority dropped the show cause notice by allowing Cenvat Credit on the ground that M.S. Rod used to manufacture of tote boxes which is further used in the manufacture of their final product. Aggrieved by the said order in original Revenue filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the Revenue. Being aggrieved by said impugned order appellant is before me. 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commr. 2006 (196) ELT 285 (Tribunal) ELT 226: 30.06.08 742 DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs COMMR OF C.EX., MEERUT-II CASES: Commissioner Vs. Hotline Glass Ltd. 2007 (210) ELT 69 (Tribunal) Union of India Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT 510 ELT 227: 28.07.08 592 COMMR OF C.EX. CHENNAI Vs THIRUMLAI CHEMICALS CASES: Commissioner Vs. India Cement 2005 (192) ELT 240 (Tribunal) referred Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 1999 (108) ELT 47 (Tribunal- L. B.) relied on Union of India Vs. Hindustan Zi .....

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 OF C.EX. PUNE CASES: Collector Vs. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT 481 (S.C.) 4. Shri. V.K. Shastri, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submission made by Learned A.R. and perused the record. 6. I find that the appellant have availed Cenvat credit in respect of M.S. Rod which undisputedly were used in the manufacture of tote boxes which in turn used for handling of finished goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly admissible on M.S. Rod. I observe that in the show cause notice, the issue was raised that M.S. Rod is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) have decided revenues appeal going completely beyond the show cause notice on the ground that the tote boxes which are manufactured within the factory are exempted from payment of excise duty therefore in terms of Rule 6(1) of CCR Cenvat credit is not admissible. First of all Ld. Commissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

per the Rule 2K explanation (2) input includes goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacture In view of this provisions in the present case M.S. Rod have been used in the manufacture of the capital goods and the capital goods in the manufacture of the final product, Cenvat credit on M.S. Rod is admissible as input. In the fact of the present case, it is undisputed that the final product manufactured by the appellant is cleared on payment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and these M.S. bars are not used for manufacturing the finished goods and it does not fall under the definition of inputs. However, on party reply it is noticed that the tote boxes/trays manufactured from the M.S. Bars by cutting and fabrication in specified sizes in length width and height are mainly used for handling of the semi finished goods in furnce alongwith trays for further heat treatment operation. The party also cited various judgments on the issue. The M.S. bars are used in making o .....

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