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

2007 (9) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re stated as hereunder : M/s. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Peenya, Bangalore are the manufacturers of CNC machines and milling machines falling under Chapter Heading No. 84.57 of the First Schedule to the Central Tariff Act, 1985. The Officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Bangalore Unit has observed that the assessee was availing the benefit of Cenvat credit on all inputs which are used in the manufacture of various machines and their parts, tools and accessories. It was also further observed that out of various machines manufactured in their factory, the respondent has capitalized six machineries i.e., CNC high speed horizontal machining center Model MAXPRO 500 HS (1 No.) CNC horizontal machining center Mod .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dent. In that regard, a show cause notice No. 44/2003-04, dated 27-2-2004 was issued and the same was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III Commissionerate vide OIO No. 9/2004, dated 29-7-2004. The duty demands of Rs. 21,85,946/- were confirmed by the said order under the erstwhile Rule 57H/57-I/57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001-2002 Rules of 2001 and 2002 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2A. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the First Appellate Authority vide appeal No. 91/2004. He has upheld the assessment order dated 20-10-2004. Aggrieved of the same, the second appeal was filed befo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rker namely the assessee who undertakes the job work takes credit using the captively consumed machines for doing such job work?" 3. Shri. Devadass, learned Senior counsel for the appellants contended that the Appellate Tribunal's order is a cryptic one. The finding of the Tribunal in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact with reference to the excess duty penalty and the interest levied after affording opportunity to the respondent is based on the relevant provisions of the Rules of 2001 and 2002 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal without assigning valid and cogent reasons has set aside the findings by placing reliance upon Rule 57F4 of the Excise Rules of 1944. Therefor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... LT 227 (S.C.) in support of his submission that the Apex Court in the said case has held inputs used in the manufacture of parts, which are intermediate products for tractors are eligible for Modvat credit even if such parts are cleared without payment of duty to another factory on the same appellant in terms of Notification No. 217/80-C.E. Placing reliance by the Rule 57C of 1944 Rules which Rules have no application to the case on hand and further rebutted the legal submission made by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the revenue wherein he has contended placing strong reliance upon the later decision of the Supreme Court than the Escort's case in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. reported .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Excise Act would justify the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in the case on hand. No doubt the Tribunal's order is a cryptic one, having regard to the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in Vikram Cement's case, it is stated by him that neither substantial questions of law as framed in this appeal or any other questions of law would arise for consideration of this Court in this Appeal. Therefore, he contends that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in setting aside the finding of fact by the first Appellate Tribunal is justified and the same is legal and valid, hence the same does not call for interference. In so far as, availing the Cenvat Credit facility under the Notification, the assessee is entit .....

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