2017 (10) TMI 963

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad No.84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Process of manufacture of incidental or ancillary to the completion of the said products was carried out in Unit-II and Unit-I situated very nearby. Unit-II got registered with the department on 27.05.2003 and Unit-I got registered on 27.11.2007 on commencement of manufacturing activities. Subsequently, on 10.11.2009, a single registration was granted to both Unit-II and Unit-I. It was alleged that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Rule 4 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 that during August 2008, they had availed 100% credit of capital goods on the basis of invoices received from Unit-II towards transfer of capital goods Credit under Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 since as per R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e balance was taken only in the next financial year. He also submitted that the investment casting dies have been categorized as capital goods though such items are treated as inputs in their manufacturing process and that by oversight only they had treated the same as input and took 100% credit. Further, in respect of credit taken on the basis of Photostat copies, it was submitted by the Counsel that the courier bill of entry is a valid document for taking credit. He also submitted that the appellant has filed a certified copy of bill of entry which should be accepted as a proper bill of entry for the purpose of availing Cenvat credit. Further, in respect of issue of credit on input services, it was submitted by the Learned Counsel that if....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l year. Further, I find that Cenvat credit was taken but it was not utilized and therefore, in view of J&K Tyre & Industries Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mysore - 2016(340) E.L.T. 193 (Tri.-LB), relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Bill Forge PVt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (279) E.L.T. 209, the appellant are not liable to pay interest and penalty. Further, I also find that credit has been denied with regard to input services on the ground that in the bill, service tax registration is not mentioned and further some of the bills are not in the prescribed format. In this regard, I have perused the bills of service providers excepting the service tax registration number all other details h....