2019 (1) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... system Type Romat 350 Machine Shop (C-2 shed, MHE Division of Elecon Engg.) 6,95,780 13,916 1120 dt. 23.09.05 (50%) & 1 dtd. 01.04.06 (50% remaining) 3 910131 Dt. 07.07.05 Laser cutting machine, model LMX 730/TF-6000 Machine Shop (C-2 shed, MHE Division of Elecon Engg.) 52,77,410 1,05,548 1120 dt. 23.09.05 (50%) & 1 dtd. 01.04.06 (50% remaining) The said capital goods were cleared by the appellant to the appellant's MHE Division vide material dispatch Advice No. 609 dated 01.06.2005 and 627 dated 25.07.2005. The capital goods mentioned at serial number 1 & 2 above are installed in shed number C2 and capital goods mentioned serial No. 3 in shed H2 of M/s EEL at MHE Division. The registration for shed No. C2 & H2 was obtained in the month of March 2007. The appellant had availed cenvat credit of these machines at original premises on 23.09.2005 (50%) and balance 50% was availed on 01.04.2006. The appellant reversed the said credit availed in the original unit in respect of machineries which were installed in shed No. C2 and H2. The appellant reversed the said credit in their Unit and took the credit in the new registered unit. The registration No. of Or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Ld. Counsel argued that before availment of cenvat credit of the said CVD the appellant had applied to Revenue by an application for treating the lease premises i.e. shed C2 and H2 as part of the common registration of the appellant company on 22.09.2005. The appellant had sought common registration in view of the integrated operations. The appellant had fulfilled all the provisions of law in respect of the common registration and thereafter availed the cevnat credit on the said goods on 23.09.2005 (50%) and remaining credit on 01.04.2006 (50%). He argued that the application for common registration was neither rejected nor granted. The appellant enjoyed the bonafide belief that the cenvat credit in respect of aforesaid capital goods was correctly availed in the books of the main unit. In further correspondence vide letter dated 17.07.2006 the appellant wrote to Assistant Commissioner reminding him about the application for common registration and also requested that if the same is not granted a separate registration should be given in respect of the lease premise. Consequently, a separate registration was granted to the new premises. On receipt of the registration in respect of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-6-2000, the original authority held that the respondent had two units namely (1) Central Excise registered factory producing excisable final products and (2) another unit called Mother Roll Plant which was not registered under the Central Excise Rules; that they purchased capital goods and installed in their registered factory and took the credit of the duty paid thereon; that subsequently for want of space, they shifted the machinery to their another Unit namely Mother Roll Plant which was situated 500 mts away from the registered unit and that at the time of removal of the capital goods, they neither obtained permission nor reversed the credit of duty taken on the said capital goods. The department reversed the credit amount of Rs. 87,976/-. The claim made by the respondent assessee for refund of the said amount was on the ground that the capital goods installed in their Mother Roll Plant was eligible for the credit of duty inasmuch as the said plant process the goods of the registered factory. The original authority rejected the claim by holding that 57Q(1) stipulates that the capital goods should be installed in the place of manufacture of final products and not in the place o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods concerned. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The question of law is therefore, answered in the negative and the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 10540 of 2005 is closed." Similarly in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd. (supra), in a dispute of similar nature, Tribunal observed as follows: "2. The contention of the appellant is that both the units belong to the appellant and that manufacturing activities connected to the production of nuts, bolts and screws were taking place in both the units. It is also the explanation that machinery was moved for repair, test etc. Whatever be the reasons for moving them, the ld. Counsel has emphasized that, this is not a case of alienation of machinery on which capital goods had been taken, to warrant return of credit. 3. As against the contentions of the appellant, ld. SDR would submit that since the movement of the capital goods was without permission from the unit where the credit was taken to another unit, there was violation of the rules. He also emphasized that at the time of movement/receipt of the capital goods, the second unit was not registered with the Central Excise.....