Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Polyplastics Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Panchkula

2016 (3) TMI 95 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of Cenvat credit on moulds - whether moulds are in possession of the appellant? - Held that:- As upon verification of the documents and after visiting of the factory of the appellant, the Chartered Engineer has certified that the moulds in question are in possession of the appellant and that the said moulds are running in good working condition. The said certificate proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the moulds on which cenvat credit taken by the appellant had been installed in the fa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the authorities below is not justified. Further, ownership or control of capital goods by the assessee is not a decisive factor for determination of eligibility to Cenvat credit. As per the statutory provisions, an assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the inputs or capital goods, upon fulfilment of the condition that those goods have suffered duty and received in the factory of manufacture of final product. In the present case, since the requirement of the Cenvat statute has been duly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the appellant availed cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on moulds, treating the same as capital goods. The cost of moulds purchased from open market was recovered by the appellant from the customers of automobile parts. Upon verification of the invoices issued by the appellant, the Central Excise Department found out such fact and accordingly, denied the Cenvat benefit to the appellant under Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Shri Rahul Tangri appearing for the appellant submits that the moulds have not been removed from the factory and to that effect, he has produced the Chartered Engineers certificate before this Tribunal. 3. The Department s contention is that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that the moulds have not been removed to the customers under the cover of invoices issued by it. It is the further argument of the Department that since the ownership/title of the mould has been transfer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version