2014 (4) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the domestic manufacturer i.e. in Stay petition No. E/S/2842/2009 is to the tune of Rs. 21,96,145/- with penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs and the penalty imposed upon the other 100% EOU involved in E/S/2843/2009 is Rs. 50,000/-. 3. After hearing both the sides, we note that the domestic unit procured certain inputs and availed the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the same. Subsequently the said inputs were cleared by them to their 100% EOU sister concern, without payment of any duty or without reversal of Cenvat credit availed on the said inputs. Such transfer of inputs by the domestic unit to 100% EOU was after obtaining the permission of the Commissioner and after obtaining the requisite CT-3 certificate in terms of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E.,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entended. 6. At this stand ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to the Tribunal decision in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. v. CCE (Appeals), Bangalore reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 51 (Tri.-Bang.), extending the benefit of notification to a procured manufacturer of capital goods, which stand ultimately cleared to a 100% EOU. He submits that the said decision of the Tribunal stand confirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court reported as 2011 (267) E.L.T. 160 (Kar.). 7. However, we find that the said decision of the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the goods involved in that case were the capital goods, which were put to use by the appellant for a considerable period of time. It was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved in the present proceeding is 22/2003-C.E. However, he fairly agrees that the condition involved in the past notification as also in the present notification is identical. Ld. Advocate further submits that the Larger Bench, while delivering the above decision has taken note of the amendment in the provision of Rule 57F, vide which the concept of 'deemed manufacture' was removed. He draws our attention to the provision of Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which confers the status of manufacture on the recipient of the inputs. 9. We have seen the said Rule 16, relied upon by the Advocate. The same relates to the credit of duty on the goods brought back to the factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other....