TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery which were exported along with this machinery without reversing the credit on the ground that they were not inputs; on a compressor and shrink wrapping machine also on the ground that they were not inputs; and on parts of the machines that the appellant manufactured and cleared, which was applied to keep in stock as part of the contractual obligation with the customers but did no clear. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has denied the credit and imposed a penalty. Hence this appeal. 2. As to the first issue, while the counsel for the appellant contends that the provisions of rule 57F (1) (ii) would apply, the departmental representative points out that in the reply to the show cause notice, the assessee had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the forming machine. It is clear despite this claim in the rule 570 declaration that it is not a component of the glass forming machine, the fact that it may be used in conjunction with the machinery that the appellant manufacture it does not necessary render a part of that machine. We are therefore satisfied that it is not all input and the credit has rightly been denied. 4. The third item relates to spares for the machine. It is stated that its contract with its intended buyers required the appellant to supply certain number of spares of the machine along with the machine. The appellant acquired and kept in stock some spares which were to be supplied for the machine that was to be exported. It is accepted that the export did no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidering the submission it is found - a) Period of demand is August 91 to June 92 and show cause notice was issued on 27/3/95 and para 10 of this notice states - "10. From the foregoing para it is evident that the 'assessee' have deliberately and wilfully suppressed the fact of availment of modvat credit on spares, mandatory spars, air compressors and shrink wrapping machines on which they did not carry out any manufacturing activity and were not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products with an interest to evade Central Excise duty by incorrectly availing modvat credit on these goods, which were subsequently cleared without payment of Central Excise duty or reversing the modvat credit availed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken up by the Commissioner, who has held as follows: - (i) The extended period is correctly invoked. (ii) The demand already quantified & confirmed under Order-in-Original No. 229/96-Commr. Dated 30.9.1996 is reconfirmed except Modvat Credit availed on Air Compressor which was allowed to the assessee by Hon ble CEGAT vide their order No. CII/2953/WZB/2002 dated 4.10.2002. (iii) No order on penalty as the amount of penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed on M/s Shavik Glasstech Ltd. has been reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs by Hon ble CEGAT/CESTAT vide their order referred above. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before Tribunal again. 2. The only issue before us is whether the extended period has rightly been i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2011 (272) ELT 161 (Bom). He further argued that in these circumstances, penalty under Rule 173Q is not sustainable. 4. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the issue on merit has already been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 4.10.2002, which is not challenged. Now the only issue needs to be decided is whether the invocation of extended period has rightly been upheld by the Commissioner. 5.1 We find that in respect of first issue, the appellant had admitted before the Commissioner that the items were not at all its inputs. However, it is the matter of record that the same were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so to Rule 57F(4) deals with manner of utilisation of credit in cases of export of "final products" or "intermediate products" under bond. Export of inputs as such under bond were treated as "final product" by virtue of "deemed manufacture" clause (i.e. the expression as if such inputs have been manufactured in the same factory) under the erstwhile Rule 57F(1)(ii) which covered all such cases within the ambit of proviso to Rule 57F(4). This expression was omitted by Notification No. 28/95-CE (NT) dated 29.6.95 with a view to simplify the clearance procedure, which has created doubt in respect of utilisation of credit in such cases. It is not the intention of the Government of debar such manufacturer-exporters from utilising credit. Clearanc....