Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd that even if capital goods manufactured within the factory of the appellant and admittedly it is exempted, Cenvat credit in respect of input used in the manufacture of such exempted capital goods is permissible. As per CCR, 2004 the Cenvat Credit is allowed on the input as 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 app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... interest under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11AB. Show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner 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. When the matter is called for none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment was found on record, therefore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i, 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 goods and for heat treatment. It was found that the said tote boxes are used for conveying same finished goods into furnace and after heat treatment the said goods are taken out of furnace by the help of this tote boxes. In view of this fact, I find that M.S. Rod is used for manufacture of tote box which is in nature of capital goods. The said capita .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 contention of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong as Rule 6(1) is applicable only when the final product is cleared under exemption. The original authority has allowed the Cenva credit by giving reasonable findings which is reproduced below: It is noted that the allegations are made in show cause notice that M.S. Bars are used for making tote boxes which are used for keeping and carrying inputs and semi finished goods in and around the factory and these M.S. bars are not used for manufacturing the finished goods and it does not fall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... original authority has applied his mind and legally extended Cenvat credit to the appellant. On-going through the judgments cited by the appellant in their appeal memo and also before the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that in all those judgments Cenvat credit in respect of material handing equipment has been allowed and the ratio of the these judgments are applicable in the present case also. In view of the above, settled legal position, my discussion and also considering the findings of the original authority, I am of the view that appellant is legally entitle for the Cenvat credit in respect of M.S. Rod, therefore impugned order is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside, and appeal is allowed. (Dictated in court) - - TaxTMI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates