2011 (11) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... However, on the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,79,000/- charged by M/s. Jyoti Ltd., Central Excise duty @ 13% i.e. Rs. 36,010/- was charged. The repaired rotor assembly was sent back to the respondent under the invoice mentioning the charges for the repair including the charges for replacement part and the total excise duty paid. The respondent took Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the repaired rotor assembly. The department denied the same they denied this Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoice on the basis of which the Cenvat credit had been taken is of repaired capital goods and not new capital goods and that the repaired capital goods are not covered by the definition of 'capital goods' as given in Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 Shri R.K. Gupta, the learned Departmental Representative, pleaded that the repairing is not manufacture, that no duty was required to be paid, that in view of this, the respondent could not take Cenvat credit on the basis of the repair invoice issued by M/s. Jyoti Ltd. and that, therefore, the impugned order is not correct. He also emphasized that repaired goods are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. 2.2 Shri Alok Arora, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the rotor assembly was a part of capital goods falling under heading 8503 of the Tariff, that the rotor assembly had been sent to M/s. Jyoti Ltd. for repairs and was sent back after repairs under the invoice of M/s. Jyoti Ltd., t....