TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t CER entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail credit of the duty paid by the supplier, so quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be challenged by revenue in charge of recipient unit. Transfer of dies from Unit-II to Unit-I on payment of duty - Held that: - there is no dispute that Unit-II has paid duty while transferring the dies to Unit-I. Admittedly, these dies have been sent for repairs and are not in the nature of capital goods for Unit-I. But Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides for return of goods to the factory for repair, remaking etc. Hence the credit cannot be disallowed only for the reason that the dies are not the capital goods for Unit-I. The appellant has submitted various documents such as material receipt notes on the part of Unit-I, purchase order details of proportion including evidence for payment of Service Tax on the transportation etc. These evidences have been ignored by the adjudicating authority. In any case the credit availed by Unit-II stands reversed when the dies were returned to Unit-II after carrying out repairs by reversal of the Cenvat Credit. Since the credit availed alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat Credit availed. Penalties were also imposed against. Aggrieved by the above order, the first set of five appeals has been filed by M/s Caparo Engineering India Ltd as well as various employees on whom penalties have been imposed. 3. The second set of four appeals involved a different issue. For the manufacture of Auto Mobile parts, M/s Tata Motors Ltd. supplied various capital goods such as dies, tools, moulds etc, on loan basis, during period February 2010. Unit-II availed Cenvat Credit of such duty paid. Some of the dies which were worn out during use were sent to Unit-I for carrying out repairs. At the time of such transfer, Unit-II paid Central Excise duty and Unit-I, in turn, availed Cenvat Credit of such duty paid under capital goods in two parts of 50 per cent each. After carrying out the rectification, capital goods were cleared back to Unit-II in March, 2011 on reversal of the Cenvat Credit availed. Revenue was of the view that Unit-I was not entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit of the duty paid by Unit-II since these dies and moulds were not in the nature of Capital goods for Unit-I. Further, the department was of the view that there was no record of the dies being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d orders are summarized below:- i. M/s Tata Motors Ltd. have imported dies without payment of duty under EPCG license. Such import had actual user condition, but the diversion of dies to Unit-II was done without the permission of DGFT. ii. The adjudicating authority has held that the duty was initially paid by M/s Tata Motors so as to benefit the appellant by way of taking Cenvat Credit. iii. He referred to CBEC Circular dated 14/01/2011 and submiited that the duty paid by M/s Tata Motors is to be deposited to Government under Section 11D since they were not required to pay such duty. With reference to the second dispute he argued as follows:- i. Unit-II has transferred dies to Unit-I on payment of duty. The adjudicating authority has recorded that Unit-I had only a meager credit of ₹ 17 lakhs in the capital goods account and hence the payment of duty by Unit-II was by way of financial accommodation of Unit-I. ii. Such dies were not in the nature of capital goods useful to Unit-II for manufacture and hence no credit is admissible to Unit-II under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as capital goods. iii. There is no written order for movement of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into deposit of duty . There is no legal basis for such presumption. The Rules entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of the recipient unit [ 2000 (38) RLT 179]. 8. The counsel appearing for the Revenue could not assail any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. That being the position, we agree with view taken by the Tribunal and find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. By following the decision of the Apex Court we come to the conclusion that credit cannot be denied to Unit-II in as much as the duty stands paid by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. There is also no justification for demanding the amount from M/s Tata Motors under Section 11D. 10. Next we turn to the second dispute which involves transfer of dies from Unit-II to Unit-I on payment of duty. The Cenvat Credit availed by Unit-II has been sought to be rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
