TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Cenvat Credit on Inputs for Gear Boxes</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-I Versus PREMIUM ENERGY TRANSMISSION LTD.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order in a case where the Revenue appealed against the availing of Cenvat credit on inputs for ... Inputs - Clearance of gearboxes on payment of duty and also without payment of duty to Wind Mills - When the respondents cleared the exempted gearbox and to wind mills, they reversed an amount of 8%/10% on the amount of the value of the gear boxes - revenue’s submission that respondents are precluded to avail credit on the inputs which are exclusively used for exempted products, is not acceptable – held that Rule 6(2) is applicable – demand and penalty is not sustainable Issues:- Availing Cenvat credit on inputs for exempted products- Reversal of amount on exempted goods- Compliance with Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004- Applicability of Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions- Upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) orderAnalysis:The case involves the Revenue appealing against the Order-in-Appeal that set aside the order-in-original concerning the availing of Cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing gear boxes. The respondents cleared gearboxes to Wind Mills under a specific notification, reversing an amount on exempted goods. The adjudicating authority concluded that the respondents suppressed facts to evade duty, imposing penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, leading to the Revenue's appeal.The Revenue argued that the respondents availed credit on inputs exclusively used for exempted products, contrary to Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. They contended that the respondents knew about the input usage for wind mill gear boxes and should not have availed credit on such inputs. The Revenue sought to reinstate the original order.The respondents, however, maintained that they did not avail credit on inputs exclusively used for exempted products. They cited a Tribunal decision and argued that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of credit misuse. They emphasized the absence of records showing exclusive use of inputs for wind mill gear boxes.Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal examined whether the respondents correctly reversed an amount on gear boxes cleared to wind mills under the notification. It was observed that the Revenue did not prove that the respondents availed credit on inputs exclusively used for wind mill gear boxes. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondents complied with Rule 6 by reversing an amount on exempted goods, as per the Board's circular and relevant case laws.The Commissioner's findings highlighted the lack of evidence showing exclusive input usage for wind mill gear boxes. The Tribunal referenced a case involving similar circumstances, emphasizing compliance with Rule 57CC and the Supreme Court's decision on availing Modvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeals and disposing of the respondents' cross-objections.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
