2017 (3) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal dated 27.08.2015 in Excise Appeal No.60179 of 2013. The main grievance of the appellant appears to be that while the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue of applicability of extended period of limitation, the Tribunal has decided the issue against the appellant on reversal of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, amounting to Rs. 25,78,578/-. The questions of law sought to be answered are hereunder:- "(i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the department on the grounds of merit under the facts and circumstances of the present case ? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the department on merits without....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om the main plant); these goods were installed in this premises; the process performed at the appellant's main manufacturing plant together with the process performed at their said polishing printing premises result into completion of manufacture of their final products and thus, the said capital goods were used in the manufacture of the appellant's final products and the capital goods were not supposed to be returned to their main manufacturing plant. The department has not disputed the fact that the capital goods in question were sent for carrying out some processing in the appellant's said other premises (located at a distance of about half kilometer from the main plant). Rather, the adjudicating authority in Para 3 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....kers premises. This being the case, I do not find any reason for reversal of the Cenvat credit on the capital goods which were found in the factory premises of the job worker, who is undisputedly one of the group concerns of the appellant. Thus, as per this judgement of the Hon'ble CESTAT, it has been clearly held that there is no need for reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of movement/sending of the capital goods (goods sent for job work) to the assessee's other premises. This judgement is squarely applicable to the appellant's case." In view of the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the additional premises were in existence, the cenvat credit was allow....