Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Amalgamations Repco Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 July, 2015

        

 

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI


E/00447/2007

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.11/2007, dated 25.05.2007    passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-1 ]


M/s. AMALGAMATIONS REPCO LTD.
APPELLANT 
         
        Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-I
RESPONDENT

E/00498/2007 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.11/2007, dated 25.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-1 ] COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-I APPELLANT Versus M/s. AMALGAMATIONS REPCO LTD RESPONDENT Appearance:

For the Assessee Shri K. Mani, [No vakalat on file] Cons.
For the Revenue Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 15-07-2015 FINAL ORDER NOs. 40975-40976 / 2015 There is no dispute that the appellant was a manufacturer. It had also job worked goods for others.

2. It comes out from para 3 of the Adjudication order that during the period 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 capital goods cleared by the appellant had enjoyed the capital goods credit when acquired. But such credit was denied by the department on the ground that no duty paid clearances were made by appellant as a job worker. Appellant says that job-worked goods suffered duty ultimately in the hands of principal manufacturer.

2. In absence of any provision in law denying capital goods credit to a manufacturer who was also a job worker, the appellant should succeed since the acquisition of capital goods and use thereof in manufacture was not in dispute.

3. When the job worker appellant was entitled to the exemption under mandate of notification, that does not alter characteristics of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, denial of capital goods credit to the appellant is uncalled for. When this is the position of law, assessees appeal should be allowed and Revenues appeal dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr 08-08-2015 DRAFT Remarks I II III Date of dictation 15.07.2015 Draft Order - Date of typing 24.07.2015 07.08.2015 Fair Order Typing 08.08.2015 Date of number and date of dispatch 4 E/00447/2007