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

2016 (5) TMI 837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocedural provisions which permit the facility so long as the item in question are treated either as inputs or as capital goods. Therefore, the denial of credit is clearly an error. Since the moulds in question are admittedly used by the job workers to whom the appellant had send the same by following the procedure prescribed under the CENVAT Credit Rules, denial of refund of reversed credit is not in order. Therefore, by following the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Indorama Textiles Limited [2009 (10) TMI 571 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the Tribunal ruling in CCE & C, Daman, VAPI vs. Guala Closures (I) Private Limited [2009 (1) TMI 564 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], there is no co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsumed in the manufacture of MS Ingots by the job-worker treating the same as scrap. Such MS Ingots were also returned to the appellants who used it in the manufacture of finished goods namely CTD bars in their factory. As the CI Ingot Moulds were finally consumed in the manufacture of finished goods, the same was declared by the appellants as scrap though it is capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. On a visit to the appellant company s premises on 14.3.2006, and on verification of records by the Divisional Preventive Unit of Madurai I Division, it was found that the assessee company availed Cenvat Credit on CI Ingot Moulds falling under sub heading 8454.2020 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, under the categor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Appeals) has already allowed the Cenvat credit on merit and only verification has been ordered which has been accepted by the department. He also submits that all the relevant details were furnished to prove the consumption of CI Ingot Moulds in the manufacture of MS Ingot which in turn was received back by the appellant and used in the manufacture of duty paid CTD bars in their factory. In the denovo adjudication, the Joint Commissioner rejected the refund for the reason that the moulds are not used in the appellant s factory for manufacturing CTD bars and hence could not be considered as input by abandoning the original allegation of non-return within 180 days made in the show cause notice. In the impugned order the Ld. Commissioner ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h certain exceptions. He prayed that the appeal may please be allowed with consequential relief of refund with interest. He relied on the following citations :- 1. Vikram Cement Vs CCE, Indore -2006 E.L.T.(194) 3 (SC) 2. CCE, Nagpur Vs Indorama Textiles -2010 (260) E.L.T. 382 (Bombay) 7. The Department was represented by Ms.Indira Sisupal, A.C. Learned Authorised Representative (AR), who contended that the moulds in question is not an input and referred to the definition of `inputs and further contended that the verification report filed by the Assistant commissioner, Madurai-I Division, was not specific as to whether the ingot moulds have been eventually used in the manufacture of ingots which in turn have been used in the manufa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... process in the appellants factory and they were used elsewhere. Even assuming that the appellant had wrongly declared the goods as inputs instead of capital goods because of consumption in the course of manufacture, credit cannot be denied merely because only 50% of the credit is allowed to be used in the same financial year of purchase. The failure to receive back the moulds within the specified period was due to full utilisation and consumption of the moulds in the course of manufacture resulting in the same emerging as scrap and the counsel s contention that even the rule do not contemplate denial of credit when processed goods are returned, on which appropriate duty is paid, cannot be faulted. Since the moulds in question are admittedl .....

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