TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21441/2015 - 22428/2017 - Dated:- 31-7-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri V. Raghuraman, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 27/02/2015 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby he rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are holders of Central Excise Registration and manufacturers of glass and glassware, vaccum pressure pump etc. They are availing the facility of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, in short). During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital goods are sent out of factory for testing purposes in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR. He also submitted that in the present case, the goods were received back within 180 days which fact is stated in the show-cause notice also and is not in dispute. He further submitted that the copy of declaration issued by M/s. Unichem Laboratories ltd. dt. 17/07/2010 certifies that the appellant has sent the capital goods for testing and after testing the same was sent back to the appellant. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Surya Colour Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2012(280) ELT 455 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. Max India Ltd. Vs. CCE [2008(227) ELT 328 (Tri. Del.)] 4.2. He further submitted that even i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dt. 17/07/2010 issued by M/s. Unichem and after testing the goods were sent fact to the appellant and since the goods were sent for testing, no reversal was required as per the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) and moreover the goods were received back within 180 days and therefore the contravention of provisions of Rule 11 of the CCR, 2002 does not arise. Further I also find that the CENVAT credit has been denied on mere procedural irregularities. Further I also find that the case laws relied upon by the appellant cited supra on various issues are squarely covered the case of the appellant and therefore by following the ratios of the above said decisions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
