TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s falling under the chapter heading 8708 of the CETA, 1985. The final product manufactured by the appellants was cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty. M/s. L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. (LGB for short) had taken over Apten Forgings (P) Ltd at Bangalore and M/s. MGM Forgings at Mysore with an intention to expand the activity in forgings operations during 01/04/2004 and the titled of the units has since been changed to M/s. Apten Forgings, Division of L.C. Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd. and M/s. MGM Industries, a Division of L.g. Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd., Mysore. The dispute in the present case relates to period 2002-03 i.e. before the units were taken over by the management of the appellant. The appellants were availing credit of du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the due process, the Jt. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No.20/2007 confirmed the proposal in the show-cause notice and also imposed equivalent penalty and also demanded interest. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the demand and rejected the appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly considering the provisions of the law as well as it is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. She further submitted that as per Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Excise Rules 2004 during the relevant period, only provided the CENVAT credit c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CCE, Chennai [2016 (343) ELT 597 (Tri. Chennai)] iv. Kluber Lubrication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Mysore [2017-TIOL-2059-CESTAT-BANG] v. Heidelberg Cement India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2017-TIOL-2120-CESTAT-BANG] vi. Heidelberg Cement India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2018-TIOL-712-CESTAT-BANG] 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the company that existed during 2002-03 was M/s. Apten Forgings (P) Ltd. and is no more legal entity since 2004 as the factory has been taken over by a new company and has been existing as a new legal entity under the name M/s. Apten Forgings, Division of L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd. and therefore the show-cause notice issued to Apten Forgings for the irregularities done by M/s. Apten Forgings pvt. Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factory of production of final production. She further submitted that even if duty is paid on such capital goods, the same would be available as CENVAT credit to the appellant which will automatically enable the appellant to avail of the procedure under Rule 4(5)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 under which no time limit for return of capital goods form the job worker is prescribed and this position has been clarified by the Department in the Supplementary Manual of Instructions. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire demand is time barred because the present demand is for the period 2002-03 and the show-cause notice is dated 14/11/2006 and the demand has been confirmed invoking the extended period of limitation on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck after completion of 180 days. Further, we find that various decision relied upon by the appellant cited supra clearly hold that prior to 31/03/201 1, there was no recovery mechanism to recover the CENVAT credit and therefore the appellant's case is squarely covered by the various decisions cited supra and by following the ratios of the said decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of Rs. 14,80,599/- relating to demand of CENVAT credit on inputs sent for job work not received back within 180 days is not sustainable in law. Further we find that the demand of Rs. 3,52,346/- on captively manufactured moulds, dies and tools without payment of duty, sent for job work and did not receive back within 180 days is also not s....