Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2013 (11) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were being returned under the challans to the principal manufacturer for use in the manufacture of automobile parts. The respondent as such were operating under Notification 214/86-CE and were not paying any duty on machined castings being cleared by them under job work challans to principal manufacturers, as the principal manufacturer as per conditions of the Notification had given an undertaking that the machined castings would be used for the manufacture of final product cleared on payment of duty. The respondent during the period of dispute had taken capital goods cenvat credit of Rs.19,71,569/- in respect of certain capital goods. The Department was of the view that since then capital goods were being exclusively used in the manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. He also pointed out that as stated by Shri Selvaraj, General Manager of respondent, till 11.06.2004, the respondent were only doing the job work of machining of rough casting and no other manufacturing activity was being carried out and that just because the respondent were clearing the waste and scrap of iron & steel generated by job work, on payment of duty, it cannot be said that the capital goods were installed for manufacture of excisable products on payment of duty. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Manish Saharan, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that as is mentioned in the appeal memo of the Revenue in the course of machining of rough castings, iron an....