2015 (7) TMI 1121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at the appellants factory at Ghaziabad and cleared on payment of duty on stock transfer basis to the appellants unit at Hosur. The piston and piston rings are repacked and re-labelled with part number and supplied to the customers like TVS Motors and Ashok Leyland on just in time basis on payment of duty. The adjudicating authority disallowed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,05,36,106/- under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed equivalent penalty (Oct. 2007 to June 2008), he also confirmed Rs. 1,02,96,279/- in respect of other show-cause notice and imposed equal penalty (July 2008 to Feb. 2009). Hence the present appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved in this case is denial of CENVAT cred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re under section 2(f)(iii) read with Note 6 of Chapter XVII. The learned counsel further submits that for the subsequent periods i.e. from March 2009 to December 2009 and January 2010 to June 2010, proceedings in the show-cause notices were dropped by the Commissioner vide Order-in-Original Nos. 38/2010 dated 30.12.2010 and 21/2012 dated 30.3.2012 and submits that once the Department having accepted the allegation in the above mentioned proceedings cannot now contest the same for the previous period and for this he relied on the following case laws:- (a) Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (195) ELT 142 (SC) (b) Boving Fouress Vs. CCE - 2006 (202) ELT 389 (SC) (c) CCE Vs. Tikitar Industries - 2012 (277) ELT 149 (SC) 3. The learned AR ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....labeling and relabeling of pistons, piston rings and piston assemblies at Hosur unit amounted to manufacture vide Order-in-Original No. 38/2010 dated 31.12.2010 and the same has been accepted by the Department. Further, the repacked products were cleared on payment of duty on a higher value and the department accepted the payment of duty on the final products. There is no justification to deny the credit on the goods used while accepting the duty on the final products. Having accepted the duty on the final products as manufactured, it is not open to the department to deny the credit on the inputs that the final products were not manufactured. Therefore, I do not find any merit to deviate from the decision taken by the predecessor Commission....