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

2016 (1) TMI 968

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were received and sent out. On the specific query from the bench, learned counsel from the respondent submits that the moulds which were received prior to 21.07.1995 were sent out after 21.07.1995, but unable to produce any evidence; submits that out of 52 molds, 10 molds were received prior to 21.07.1995. In our considered view, the claim of the appellant that these 10 molds were received prior to 21.07.1995, was sent to job worker after being installed in factory premises and used, for the processing of plastic items is not evidenced. It is the submission that the respondent may be given an opportunity to do so. If respondent is able to justify their claim that these 10 moulds were installed in their factory and put to use and subsequent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appellants had purchased 52 Moulds and availed the credit of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 38,03,272/- on moulds, without actually using or installing the moulds in their factory. It was also revealed that the appellants did not have any machinery to use these moulds for the manufacture of the plastic components in their factory. In fact the plastic components were not manufactured at all in their factory. The appellants cleared these moulds to their job workers for the manufacture of plastic components for their final products. The factory premises of M/s. Vishal Engineering Enterprises, situated at Plot No. 54, MIDC, D-2 Block, Chinchwad, Pune 19 (hereinafter referred to as the jobworder) was also visited on 03.02.99 to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... having being sent to job worker, the adjudicating authority was correct in confirming the demands. 5. Learned counsel would submit that the first appellate authority has correctly followed the provisions of the law and set aside the impugned order. It is her submissions that those moulds were received back from the job worker may be belatedly but they were received back. 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 7. We find from the records that the issue is regarding the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on the amount of Central Excise Duty paid on moulds and dies. The period involved in this appeal is pre 21/07/1995 and post 21/07/1995. 8. As regards the provisions of the rule .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ards the permission for extended period, I find that the appellants has sought permission for extended period which was granted by the Assistant Commissioner, C.Ex. Pune II Division, Pune vide his letter dated 23.10.98 (F.No. V(Mod)30-52/57S(8)/Exide/98). Further the Assistant Commissioner, Pune II Division vide his letter dated 27.01.99 permitted the appellants to remove the moulds/dies without payment of duty to the Job worker for the purpose of production of goods but reversal of Modvat Credit taken if any. To support their contention, the appellants cited the case law in the case of Piaggio Greaves Vehicle Ltd. v/s Cvommissioner, C.Ex. Pune {2001 (127) ELT 614 (Tri.LB)} which squarely applies to the present case. The relevant para is re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8, 10] In the present case also the appellants received the capital goods i.e. Moulds, the said capital goods were entered in the prescribed registers, subsequently obtained the permission from the Commissioner and removed the Moulds to the Job Workers for manufacturing It can be seen from the above that the respondent had sot permission and were granted to clear the molds and dice as per the provisions of Section 57 s (6) of the Central Excise Act 1944. It that being the case after 21/07/1995 with the premises of the adjudicative authorities, the findings recorded by the first appellate authority is correct and does not require any interference. 9. As regards the case prior to 21/07/1995, we find that the show cause notice, and .....

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