Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1073 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 1073 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 204 (Mad.) - Whether the input procured solely for the purpose of export by the assessee is entitled to CENVAT Credit when the goods were subjected only to testing and packing - Held that:- the facts of the case show that before the goods were handed over to KTTM, the assessee had undertaken a series of processes. Steel scrap, pig iron and chemicals are received as inputs by the assessee and castings are manufactured. It is only after suc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has been done before the goods are received from the KTTM Ltd., have to be completely forgotten. - This is not a case where the assessee is attempting to claim CENVAT Credit twice over. Whatever credit was claimed by them before they sent it to KTTM Ltd., was actually reversed. Therefore, the credit was still available for the assessee to take. The Tribunal was therefore, right in this regard in holding that testing and packing were part of a series of steps undertaken by the assessee for 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

with the above appeals, raising the substantial questions of law which reads as under; C.M.A.No.3148 of 2007: Inasmuch as the inputs in question were procured solely for the purpose of export and such inputs were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished goods of the assessee/respondent, whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the credit of duty with reference to Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules? C.M.A.No.2431 of 2008: 1. Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

basic condition, envisaged in Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not satisfied? 2. Heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Department and Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. The assessee admittedly receives various inputs such as steel scrap, pig iron and chemicals and manufacture castings. Thereafter these castings are sent to job workers for machining operation. While sending them to the job workers, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uty was based on the price of castings and machining charges. KTTM Ltd which can virtually be called the second job worker avails CENVAT Credit and do some painting. Thereafter they send the goods to the assessee again on payment of duty. The value adopted at that time by KTTM Ltd was the initial value adopted by the assessee plus the painting charges. This duty paid invoice is handed over by KTTM to the assessee and the assessee takes CENVAT Credit. The assessee thereafter does testing, packing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt of duty to assessee. The assessee exported the same after testing and packing and claimed CENVAT Credit. 5. However a show cause notice dated 1.7.2003 was issued proposing to disallow the CENVAT Credit in respect of the 2nd case and this resulted in an order in original dated 29.8.2003 dropping the proposals. 6. However, another show cause notice dated 28.10.2004 was issued. During the pendency of this second show cause notice in respect of certain other items, the Department filed an appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

793 and 232 of 2005 were allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 28.5.2007 holding that the testing and packing done by the assessee were part of a series of processes undertaken both for the manufacture of the finished product. As against the common order passed in both these appeals, the department has come up with only a single appeal in C.M.A.No.3148 of 2007. 9. Likewise, another show cause notice dated 7.11.2015 was issued proposing to reverse the CENVAT Credit on the ground that the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

passed by the Tribunal, in two appeals, Appeal No.793 of 2005 and Appeal No.232 of 2005, the Department has chosen to file one single appeal in C.M.A.No.3148 of 2007. But this is not possible for the reason that those two appeals arose out of different show cause notices and different orders in original. Let us keep this aside for a moment and test whether the contentions of the Department are correct or not? 11. We have already extracted the susbtantial questions of law raised in C.M.A.No.3148 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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