TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iler and Agro Waste falling under CTH 84021910 and 84021910 of CETA 1985. During the course of audit of accounts and cenvat credit documents of the appellant-assessee, it was noticed that they had taken cenvat credit on capital goods but it was found that the said capital goods were not available in the appellant s unit and the same have been installed in their sister unit and, therefore, it was alleged that they had contravened the provisions of Rule 4(2), Rule 9(5) of CCR 2004 and Section 11A of Central Excise Act in as much as the appellant availed cenvat credit wrongly on the invoices of capital goods which were not installed in the registered premises, with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty and the said capital goods becam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant s unit within the stipulated period of 180 days and were used in the process of manufacture. This fact is not disputed by the department. He submits that entire situation is revenue-neutral since the credit availed on such goods is available to Unit-IV. He also submits that imposition of penalty is not warranted as all the transactions were captured in their books of accounts, they acted under bonafide belief and followed the procedure under Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR 2004. He relied on the following case laws :- (i) Pooja Forge Ltd. Vs CCE Faridabad 2006 (196) ELT 18 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) CCE Vs Pooja Forge Ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 46 (P&H) (iii) Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Belgaum 2010 (255) ELT 83 (Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n units situated within the same Commissionerate for use in the manufacture of the same final product. In this factual scenario, the case laws relied upon by learned Advocate are applicable to the facts of this case. Similar issues was dealt with by the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases cited supra which were also upheld by Hon'ble High Courts. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant paras-5 & 6 of Tribunal s decision in the case of Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Belgaum (supra) :- "5. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The first issue involved in this case is whether the lower authorities were justified in seeking reversal of Cenvat credit and capital goods which were fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch of the Tribunal in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd. v CCE - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 18 (Tribunal) = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 318 (Tribunal) will cover the issue in favour of the assessee in this case. The ratio of the decision in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd. was taken in appeal by the Revenue to Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The decision of Tribunal was affirmed as reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 46 (P&H). I also find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.G. Zaveri Pharmapack v. CCE, Mumbai - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 591 (Tri.-Mum.) and CCE, Aurangabad v. Vaishali India Ltd. - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 247 (Tri.) = 2008 (84) RLT 576 (CESTAT-Mum.) will also cover the issue in favour of the assessee. 6. Accordingly, respectfully following the....