TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said 100% EOU from the department and give it to the supplier and then only supplier cleared the goods. The lower authority confirmed the demand of cenvat credit under Section 11A and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, on the ground that the goods cannot be cleared under Notification No. 1/95 dt. 4.1.1995 on the non-manufactured goods whereas this notification is applicable only for manufactured goods by the manufacturer. In the present case, the capital goods is not manufactured by the respondent therefore they were supposed to pay the duty equal to the amount of Cenvat Credit availed on the capital goods. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he similar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd. 2016-TIOL-1053-CESTAT-MUM and Behr India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-II 2016 (338) E.L.T. 631 (Tri.-Mumbai) held that removal of input or capital goods in the DTA of one company to 100% EOU of the same company and it is located at the same place the reversal of cenvat credit is not required. He further submits that as regard the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court while dealing with the remand matter by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Bangalore-II Vs. Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.-Cehnnai) (iii) Synpol Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., & S.T., Ahmedabad-II 2016 (335) E.L.T. 697 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. First I would deal with the findings of the impugned order which is reproduced below: "6. As regards(i) revenue neutrality I find that according to Export and Import policy the appellants were eligible for the refund of whatever Excise duty paid as Terminal Excise duty. Their unit receiving the capital goods was eligible for CENVAT Credit if the duty was paid on the same. The argument is supported by the case law of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Vs. Chloride Industries Ltd. wherein it has been held that if t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of any concrete evidence to the contrary, the ownership of the said machines remain with the appellant. As such I hold that invoking suppression of facts for claiming extended period is not sustainable. The demand is time barred. 7. In view of the above discussions and case laws cited supra I find that the case being covered by the revenue neutrality and also the show cause notice being hit by time bar; the demand of duty is not sustainable. As regards penalty and interest the demand being not sustainable, the penalties and interest are also not sustainable". From the above findings, it is observed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent on the ground that 100% EOU is eligible for the cenvat credit if al....