2016 (1) TMI 968

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Accumulators (Storage batteries) falling under Chapter 85.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence, the officers of Headquarters AE unit visited the factory premises of the appellants on the moulds which were not used or installed in the factory of the manufacture of excisable goods and also removed the same outside the factory premises without reversing the credit availed. Further inquiries revealed that the appellants had purchased 52 Moulds and availed the credit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 38,03,272/- on moulds, without actually using or installing the moulds in their factory. It was also revealed that the appellants did not have any machinery to use these moulds for the manufacture of the pla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t appellate authority. The first appellate authority said aside the order-in-original. 4. Learned departmental representative after taking us through the facts of the records would submit that the moulds and dies on which CENVAT credit was availed, prior to 21/07/1995 were required to be used in the factory of manufacturer and from 21/07/1995, the said moulds could be sent to job worker. It is his submission that the prior to the moulds having being sent to job worker, the adjudicating authority was correct in confirming the demands. 5. Learned counsel would submit that the first appellate authority has correctly followed the provisions of the law and set aside the impugned order. It is her submissions that those moulds were received ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tended period were shought. I find that the appellants have sought permission from the Commissioner well after the Moulds were received and removed to the Job Worker. The permission was shought under Rule 57S(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which was inscrted w.e.f. 21.7.95 vide Notification No. 32/95-CE(NT) dated 21.07.95. Prior to the insertion, no provision relating to removal of moulds/Dies to outside factory for jobwork existed. As regards the permission for extended period, I find that the appellants has sought permission for extended period which was granted by the Assistant Commissioner, C.Ex. Pune II Division, Pune vide his letter dated 23.10.98 (F.No. V(Mod)30-52/57S(8)/Exide/98). Further the Assistant Commissioner, Pune II D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ufacturer. Moulds and Dies coming withing the purview of Rule 57S(8) are not to be installed in the factory of the manufacturer or used in his factory for manufacture of excisable goods. Therefore, the Commissiner was clearly in error in holding that the appellants contravened the provisions contained in Rule 57Q(7) read with Rule 57S(8), (9)(10) and Rule 57Q(1) of the Rules. Assessee was right in availing Modvat Credit on Moulds and dies. [Para 7, 8, 10] In the present case also the appellants received the capital goods i.e. Moulds, the said capital goods were entered in the prescribed registers, subsequently obtained the permission from the Commissioner and removed the Moulds to the Job Workers for manufacturing It can be seen fr....