GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 968 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (1) TMI 968 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on the amount of Central Excise Duty paid on moulds and dies - Moulds sent to job worker - period involved in this appeal is pre 21/07/1995 and post 21/07/1995 - Held that:- As regards the case prior to 21/07/1995, we find that the show cause notice, and the adjudication order indicated how many moulds were sent to job worker prior to 21/07/1995, provisions of rules definitely indicate that the said moulds and dies, need .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 subsequently sent to job worker, they may have a case. - For this limited purpose, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Ashutosh Nath. Assistant Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original/Appeal No. PI/351/06 dated 24/11/2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are as under. The respondent are engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Accumulators (Storage batteries) falling under Ch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

om the appellants. Subsequently the appellants applied for permission under Rule 57S(8). The appellants were issued show cause notice dated 30.07.99 for contravention of Rule 57S(7) and Rule 57S(8) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which culminated in the above said order-in-original. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants filed the present appeal. 3. Show cause notice was issued for demand of the Central Excise duty taken as credit on such moulds and dies. The adjudicating authority .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cturer and from 21/07/1995, the said moulds could be sent to job worker. It is his submission that the prior to the moulds 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs premises after taking permission from jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner as the case may be and in the case in hand, it was followed; the findings of the first appellate authority on this point is very important which is as bellow. 4. I have carefully considered the ground of appeal and oral submission made during the personal hearing. The issue involved in this case is regarding the availment of credit on capital goods such as moulds and dies, which were not installed or 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

sioner well after the Moulds were received and removed to the Job Worker. The permission was shought under Rule 57S(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which was inscrted w.e.f. 21.7.95 vide Notification No. 32/95-CE(NT) dated 21.07.95. Prior to the insertion, no provision relating to removal of moulds/Dies to outside factory for jobwork existed. As regards the permission for extended period, I find that the appellants has sought permission for extended period which was granted by the Assistant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ex. Pune {2001 (127) ELT 614 (Tri.LB)} which squarely applies to the present case. The relevant para is reproduced below: Moulds and dies obtained by the appellants-Manufacturer were in fact received in his factory. It was entered in the registers maintained by him as per law, wheafter he got permission of the concerned commissioner for removal to his job worker. When the Moulds and dies were not got back within the period prescribed by the rules, appellant sought extension of time. The prayer f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er. On such removal, that type of capital goods will not go wout of the category of capital goods on which Modvat Credit could be claimed by the manufacturer. Moulds and Dies coming withing the purview of Rule 57S(8) are not to be installed in the factory of the manufacturer or used in his factory for manufacture of excisable goods. Therefore, the Commissiner was clearly in error in holding that the appellants contravened the provisions contained in Rule 57Q(7) read with Rule 57S(8), (9)(10) and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

visions 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 the adjudication order indicated how many moulds were sent to job worker prior to 21/07/1995, provisions of rules definitely indicate that the said moulds and d .....

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