9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital goods even after receipt of the said capital goods inside the factory in the financial year 2007-08. Subsequently, this machine was cleared to their associate concern M/s. Indo Shell Automotive Systems, Plant-1 vide their invoice No. AI-1115 dated 18.05.2009 on payment of excise duty of Rs. 57,103 and Rs. 9,640/- vide supplementary invoice No. AI-7472 dated 13.01.2010. The appellant availed Cenvat credit on the said capital goods vide Capital Goods Register Entry Sl.No. 35 dated 22.08.2009. The sequence of events financial yearwise has submitted by the appellant at page-3 of the appeal paper book, which is reproduced as under:- Sl. No. Financial year Date Event Cenvat Details 1 2007-2008 18.02.2008 Purchase of capital good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e drew my attention to the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para-3 of his order, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the entire facts of the case. Further, he relies on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cochin reported in 2008 (225) ELT 379 (Tri.-Bang.). 3. The Ld. AR Shri S. Mohan, AC, appearing on behalf of the department reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the appellants have failed to take cenvat credit during the financial year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and they are not eligible to avail the credit as they were not in possession of the capital goods at the time of availing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same financial year". On going through the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), he has observed that in the instant case the appellant has availed the credit on 22.08.2009, whereas, the capital goods have been cleared from the factory on 18.05.2009 itself. The above facts conforms to the provisions laid down by the proviso to Rule 4 (2) of CCR, 2004, and there is no ambiguity in the proviso as discussed above. Revenue is of the view that cenvat credit is not to be allowed as the appellants were not in possession of the said capital goods on that date. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cochin (supra), wherein it was decided that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
