TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely cigarettes, packing materials of paper and paperboards and printing inks falling under Chapter Nos. 24, 48 and 32 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 respectively. They have availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. The appellants received plain cylinders/rollers from various vendors who are not paying Central Excise duty as their turnover was below Rs. 1 crore. The cylinders/rollers so purchased were then cleared by the appellants to their vendors for engraving/dechroming/rechroming. The vendors carried out required process and then cleared the said rollers/cylinders on payment of Central Excise duty. On receipt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmed the above proposals. The appellant challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order of the lower adjudicating authority. Hence the appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that there is no dispute that on cylinders/rollers used by them, they have taken credit of the duty, which was paid by their vendors. The contention is that the department has demanded duty on the ground that the goods were removed as such. The appellant contended that they were put to use therefore the same were the goods removed as such. The contention is that they have been denied the credit by applying the Larger Bench's decision in the case of Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad - 2008 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the decision of Larger Bench on which the department has placed reliance was pronounced in year 2008 prior to that there was dispute in interpretation. He also placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mentha & Allied Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 494 (S.C.), wherein it was held that different view have been expressed at different stages both by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and penalty and extendable period of limitation is not invocable. 6. The learned SDR submitted that for the entire period the dispute is regarding the capital goods cleared as such. There is no dispute regarding valuation or classification. The learned SDR contended that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt on the basis of Board's instruction issued under F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC, dated 20-10-2010. Therefore, the same should be treated as no precedents value. He further reiterated that the case is settled by the Larger Bench's decision in the case of Modernova Plastyles (supra). He also submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Raghav Alloys Ltd. (supra), the facts in that case were relating to clearance of Induction Furnace as scrap, therefore, the decision is not relatable to the present case. 7. In his rejoinder, the learned Counsel submitted that first show cause notice was issued in January, 2005 and thereafter the show cause notice for the period prior to April, 2001 to December, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed in respect of such inputs or capital goods and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in rule 9 : Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (5)(a) The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning, or for the manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture of final products or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the manufacturer or provider of output service taking the CENVAT credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention of the learned Counsel that Appeal No. E/1111/2009, the period involved is April, 2001 to December, 2004 is hit by limitation of time because show cause notice on the similar issue for the period of January, 2005 to December, 2005 was issued earlier to the show cause notice covered in Appeal No. E/1111/2009, which shows that this issue was already in the knowledge of the department. Therefore, the suppression should not be alleged. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals)' order so far as Appeal No. E/1111/2009 is concerned, is not sustainable. Undisputedly, the Larger Bench's decision on which the department relied, was pronounced in the year 2008 after the issue of the show cause notice covered in these appeals, which goes to show....