2017 (7) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....b work basis for M/s.Janatics India (P) Limited (JIPL) in the adjacent premises which was separated from themain area, with credit availed materials/capital gods of M/s.JIPL apparently without informing the Department, claiming exemption of duty for the above goods and also without maintaining any accounts for the receipt and disposal of inputs/capital goods on which credit had been availed by M/s.JIPL, as required under the Central Excise Rules. It also appeared that appellants had diverted their machine tools on which they had availed cenvat credit of Rs. 36,077/- for the exclusive use of manufacture of goods on job work basis, and that they had manufactured a "Component Washing machine" and some other capital goods and used them exclusiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ses were not the jurisdictional officers and had done so without permission from their Divisional Officer. On this ground, Ld. Advocate raises objection to the propriety of the proceedings initiated by department. 4. In response, on behalf of department, Ld. A.R Shri B.Balamurugan submits that the concerned Superintendent of Central Excise had been granted permission to visit the appellant s unit. He draws attention to letter dt. 12.05.2017 of the O/o Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Coimbatore wherein this aspect has been clarified and wherein it is also clarified that there is no infirmity in the visit made by the said Superintendent. 5. In the circumstances, the Ld. Advocate was advised to argue the matter on meri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Excise Rules was not yet over. Capital goods can be with job worker for six months. 7. On the other hand, Ld. A.R supports the impugned order and also made oral submissions as follows :- (i) The appellant had applied for amendment after registration certificate, adding adjacent place. In the said request, appellant had stated that the adjacent premises is added for the purpose of job work-manufacture of exempted goods. The capital goods which were found in the adjacent premises therefore were used only for manufacture of exempted goods and thus the contention of the appellant that they were using the capital goods for manufacture of both exempted as well as dutiable goods is false and incorrect. (ii) With regard to demand of component ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity of the modvat credit. We find that on the contrary, appellants have vehemently disputed the allegation and have contended that the capital goods have been used for manufacture of exempted as well as non-exempted goods. Appellants have also contended that during adjudication they had challenged this allegation on the ground that no evidence has been placed on record to show that they had used the modvated capital goods solely for purpose of manufacture of wholly exempted goods, but that the same was not considered. From a perusal of the order of the original authority, it is seen that appellant had contended that they were carrying out drilling, taping, grinding etc. operations for their components required for making their final product....