TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of duty, sent for job work - Held that:- As per the erstwhile N/N. 214/86-CE dt. 25/03/1986, the said notification provides for exemption to items if manufactured in a factory as a job-work and used in the manufacture of final product or cleared as such from the factory of supplier of raw materials or semi-finished goods. Further, even if the duty is paid on the said capital goods, the same would be available as CENVAT credit to the appellant - the demand of ₹ 3,52,346/- on captively manufactured moulds, dies and tools without payment of duty, sent for job work and did not receive back within 180 days is also not sustainable. Time Limitation - Held that:- The case pertains to the period 2002-03 and the show-cause notice was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d., Mysore. The dispute in the present case relates to period 2002-03 i.e. before the units were taken over by the management of the appellant. The appellants were availing credit of duty paid on various inputs like steel rods and capital goods which were required for manufacture of various parts. The appellant also manufactured certain capital goods like dies/moulds/tools and captively consumed the same in the manufacture of final product and these moulds and dies were also sent to job worker i.e. M/s. MGM Forgins for job work purposes. Further during 2002-03, the appellant also availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on steel rods which were used for manufacture of final product and the same was sent to MGM Forgings for job work viz. claw forg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. She further submitted that as per Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Excise Rules 2004 during the relevant period, only provided the CENVAT credit can be taken on inputs or capital goods even if they are sent to job worker for further processing, testing etc., provided the manufacturer receives the said goods back within 180 days and if he does not receive the same within the said period, the manufacturer shall reverse the CENVAT credit attributable to the said goods. She further submitted that the said Rule did not provide any machinery for recovering the CENVAT credit in case the manufacturer has failed to reverse the CENVAT credit as required by the Rule, during the relevant period. The provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entity under the name M/s. Apten Forgings, Division of L.G. Balakrishnan Bros Ltd. and therefore the show-cause notice issued to Apten Forgings for the irregularities done by M/s. Apten Forgings pvt. Ltd. is not sustainable. She further submitted that the appellants were sending the inputs for getting the job work of forging and were receiving the goods after job work and this is clear from the statement dt. 05/01/2006 of Shri H.M. Narayanappa, Manager (Stroes), M/s. MGM Forgings Pvt. Ltd. indicates that they had sent back all the materials received on job-work basis by following the Central Excise procedures and this aspect has also been corroborated by the statement dt. 10/12/2005 of Shri Ragothaman of the appellant wherein he has stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire demand is time barred because the present demand is for the period 2002-03 and the show-cause notice is dated 14/11/2006 and the demand has been confirmed invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that the appellant did not inform the Department regarding the non-receipt of goods from the job worker and that the appellants had not brought back the moulds within 180 days of removal of goods in contravention of the provisions with -intent to evade payment of duty and that the appellants had suppressed the fact of not receiving back the moulds to the knowledge of the Department. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Revenue defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant had availed the CENVAT credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot sustainable in law. Further we find that the demand of ₹ 3,52,346/- on captively manufactured moulds, dies and tools without payment of duty, sent for job work and did not receive back within 180 days is also not sustainable. We further find that as per the erstwhile Notification No.214/86-CE dt. 25/03/1986, the said notification provides for exemption to items if manufactured in a factory as a job-work and used in the manufacture of final product or cleared as such from the factory of supplier of raw materials or semi-finished goods. Further we find that even if the duty is paid on the said capital goods, the same would be available as CENVAT credit to the appellant. As far as limitation is concerned, we find that the case pertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
