Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Ampson Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

2016 (2) TMI 780 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Manufacture - whether the activity of modification of moulds and dies amount to manufacture therefore it is liable to excise duty ? - applicability of provision of Rule 4(5)(a) - exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/3/1986 - Held that:- Rule permits to send the capital goods to job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning or manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for manufacturing of final product or any other purpose. In view of this clear provisions, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lds supplied by Bhoisar unit to the appellant and appellant after carried out the activity returned back the moulds to the Bhoisar unit where it was used for the manufacture of other final product i.e. plastic parts on which excise duty is undisputedly paid. In this position even if by any stretch of imagination the activity held to be manufacture though not accepted by us, the moulds will remain exempted under the notification No. 214/86-CE. Facts in the judgments cited by the Ld. A.R. are not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant : Shri Vinay S Sejpal, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Nath, Astt. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. CPA (666) 124/MV/2006 dtd. 31/1/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone, wherein Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant by upholding the Order-in-Original No. 507/21/V/2005/NC/HBN dated 29/11/2005. 2. The fact of the present case is that the appellant received Moulds .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e therefore it is liable to excise duty. The Adjudicating authority held the activity as manufacture and demanded the duty vide its Order-in-Originals. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal therefore the appellant is before us. 3. Shri.Vijay Sejpal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of moulds and dies as well as activity of repair, maintenance and modific .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hange in the identity of the goods except some modification. However, the modification carried out does not alter the identity of the goods hence activity remained as repair and maintenance or modification which does not amount to manufacture. Moreover their Bhoisar Unit is supplying the moulds under Challan issued under Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR, 2002 which permits the assessee to send capital goods to job worker for further processing, testing, repair and re-conditioning or for any other purpose, w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

carried out on the moulds changes the form of moulds therefore the activity carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Therefore the Adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority has rightly demanded the duty on the said activity. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Gehring India Vs. Collector of C. Ex. Kanpur [2000 (116) ELT 679 (Tri.)] (ii) Becco Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi [1998 (79) ELT 705 (Tri.)] (iii) Decorative Lamina .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he said activity, moulds remained as moulds only except some changes but the said changes does not alter the identity of the moulds into some different product. In nutshell, before and after process carried out by the appellant the product remained as moulds only therefore in our considered view, the activity, by any stretch of imagination cannot be treated as manufacture. As regard submission of the Ld. Counsel regarding the job work carried out in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) for ease of reference, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ory within one hundred and eighty days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received back within one hundred eighty days, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs or capital goods by debiting the CENVAT credit or otherwise, but the manufacturer can take the CENVAT credit again when the inputs or capital goods are received back in his factory. From the plain reading of the above Rule, it is clear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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