TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rores Eleven Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Seven only) and penalty of the equal amount on the firm. Divisional Manager (Finance) filed Appeal against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only). 2. M/s.H.V.Transmissions Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HVTL) filed Appeal against the demand of Rs. 1,58,28,094/-(Rupees One Crore Fifty Eight Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Ninety Four only) and penalty of the equal amount. Divisional Manager (Finance) of the company also filed Appeal against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only). 3. The demand is confirmed on the ground that both the Appellant companies sold the inputs to M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. (hereinaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso submitted by the Appellants that goods were not removed from the factory of production and the same were used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty. Therefore the demand is not sustainable as the ownership is not relevant for the purpose of taking credit. As in terms of the provisions of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002 duty paid on inputs, input service and capital goods would be availed as credit as the same were used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty. It is also submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 57AB and Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002 deals with the situation of removal of inputs as such on which credit has been availed. The contention is that in terms of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puts. Revenue also submitted that during the adjudication proceedings both the Appellants failed to produce stock registers regarding the stock of inputs available on 10.06.2001. The Appellant HVTL in a letter dated 05.09.2005 admitted that they were not in a position to differentiate between the goods in question which represented running stock of material lying with HVTL on the date of sale through commercial invoices belong to pre-separation from TML or post-separation stage. In the case of HVAL the Appellant failed to produce the stock register to show the stock position as on 10.06.2001. In absence of such records the adjudicating authority held that the claim of HVAL is not proved that they were factually in possession of the inputs o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the goods imported and cleared on payment of duty by one person can be used as inputs and credit of duty can be claimed by another person by establishing that the imported duty paid goods have been received as inputs and that the importer has not taken credit of that duty. In the present case, it is established that the duty paid goods are received as inputs, however, the credit is denied on the ground that the Bill of entry is not endorsed in the name of the appellant. Rule 57G does not require that for taking credit of duty, the bill of entry should be endorsed in the name of the claimant. 10. Further we find the Tribunal in the decisions relied upon by the Appellant held that the transfer of ownership of capital goods by way of sale,....