TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturned to the factory within 180 days, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 4 (5) (a) of the CCR, 2004. However, no discussion or finding has been returned in respect of the application claimed to have been filed by the assessee for addition of the premises. The fact of such application having been filed is also not denied in the present proceedings - in view of the fact that the Tribunal has remanded the matter on the issue of extended period of limitation, we deem it proper that the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue of limitation on remand may also decide the issue raised by the assessee in respect of the application of Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 amounting to ₹ 25,78,578 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the order in original passed by the Commissioner dated 12.12.2012 it appears that the assessee had got job work done in his premises in respect of which it had moved an application for addition as an additional premises within time, which was not found acceptable by the Commissioner and, accordingly, the applicability of Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was denied. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) passed a detailed order on this aspect and in paragraph no.5 there of he observed as under:- The issue relates to the denial of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 25,78,578/- on account of the alleged non-return of the capital goods within the stipulated period of 180 days under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same (goods) had not come back to the main factory. I find that a similar issue of the demand of duty credit in respect of movement of the capital goods to the assessee's other premises (demand in terms of Rule 4(5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004) arose in the case of Zenith Machine Tools PVT. LTD. V/s CCE, belgum, 2010 (255) elt 83 (Tri.), wherein the Hon'ble CESTAT held that I find that the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) very clearly envisages eligibility to Cenvat credit on the inputs or capital goods which are sent to a job worker. The only condition in Rule 4(5)(a) is that the said capital goods has to be received back within 180 days of that being sent to job worker and this condition not complied with, then assessee sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with the specific findings and observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal appears to have taken the view that inasmuch as the manufactured goods had not returned to the factory within 180 days, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, no discussion or finding has been returned in respect of the application claimed to have been filed by the assessee for addition of the premises. The fact of such application having been filed is also not denied in the present proceedings. In view of the above and specially in view of the fact that the Tribunal has remanded the matter on the issue of extended period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
