2011 (2) TMI 1080

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per: Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants filed these appeals against the impugned orders challenging the duty, interest and various penalties under the Central Excise law. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants having two units, Unit No.1 & 2. On 31/12/2004, the appellants transferred capital goods i.e.  injection moulding machines from unit No.1 to unit No.2 under job work chal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly issued invoices and unit No.2 took the credit o the strength of invoice issued by unit No.1 in March 2005 and March 2006.  Thereafter, a show-cause notice  dated 27/08/2007 was issued to unit No.2 for wrong availment of credit on the invoices issued by unit No.1 on the ground that as there is no movement of goods against this invoice, Cenvat Credit is not available to unit No.2 and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he department that the appellant has reversed the credit  in March 2005 and correspondingly issued invoices on unit No.2 and on those invoice unit No.2 was taken the credit, the extended period is not invocable. In these circumstances,  as there is no fraud, collision, or contravention of any provisions of law with an intent to do.  On merits also he submitted that it is not dispute....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etc.,  with an intent to evade duty  are not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR re-iterated the impugned order. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made by both sides. 7. On perusal of the facts of the case, I find that it is admitted fact that the capital goods were moved from unit No.1 to unit No.2, it is also admitted fact that in the earlier round of litiga....