TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... points of time. The Appeal No. E/278/2009 has arisen out of Order-inOriginal No.34/Commr./BOL/09 dated 05.02.2009 and the Appeal No. E/412/2006 has arisen out of Order-in-Original No.2/Commr./BOL/06 dated 31.03.2006. The common facts of the case are outlined below briefly for the purpose of present appeals. 2. The appellants are registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacture of various machineries falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the purpose of such manufacture they availed cenvat credit on various machineries, parts of machineries, accessories etc. The specific dispute involved in both the appeals pertains to certain exports undertaken by the appellants during the period December, 2002 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e show cause notices were decided by the issue of the two impugned orders in which the adjudicating authority ordered for reversal of the cenvat credit availed alongwith interest. Further, penalties were also imposed. These orders are under challenge in the present proceedings. 3. Appellants are represented by Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate and Revenue is represented by Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate. 4. Ld. Senior Advocate argued the case on behalf of the appellants. The main arguments are summarized below; i) The machinery which has been exported is described as 'Continuous Automatic Coil to Coil galvanizing Line'. Since this was a very complex machinery, several components and sub-systems had to be procured from outside. But h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts factory. As such, the department is not justified in asking for reversal of the cenvat credit once again. v) He also relied on the following case laws: a) Flat Products Equipments (I) Ltd.vs Commr. Of C.Ex,[2000(115) ELT 629(T). b) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Customs & C.Ex.(A) [2009(243) ELT 92(T). c) Commr. Of C.Ex, vs. BHP Engineers [2000(119) ELT 599(T)] d) Poonam Spark (P) Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., [2004(164) ELT 282(T)] e) Bharat Coaking & Coal Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. [2001(127) ELT 758(T)] f) Sheth Computers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of C.Ex., [200(121) ELT 738(T)] g) Commr. Of Central Excise vs. Universal Cables Ltd. [2017(345) ELT (308) (T)] h) MRF Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. & S.T. [2016(3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, Chennai [2013(295) ELT 353(S.C.)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an assessee, who had purchased some machinery from others and exported the same in exact condition without even unpacking it, will not be eligible for the modvat credit. Finally, he submitted that the impugned orders may be sustained. 6. In his rebuttal the ld. Senior Advocate submitted that the decision in the case of Ford India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., Chennai (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. He sought to distinguish the decision on the basis of the paragraph 7.5 of the said decision. He particularly emphasized that the export invoices which are part of the appeal papers clearly evidence the fact t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onents/sub-systems. 9. The appellant has justified the cenvat credit mainly with the argument that the complex machinery can only be assembled at the site of the customers. It has also been submitted that any cenvat credit availed stands reversed at the time of clearance of goods on payment of duty for export. Consequently it is argued that the Revenue cannot ask for repayment of cenvat credit all over again. 10. The 'Continuous Automatic Coil to Coil galvanizing Line' is a very complex machinery. Such complex machineries are invariably cleared from the factory in multiple consignments for facilitating transport. Since such clearances happened in completely knocked down form, the machinery achieves its assembled form only at the site of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acture of final product, even though it was originally taken but subsequently reversed, has been decided by a five Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Franco Italian Company Pvt. v. CCE, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 792. The aforesaid five members Bench of the Tribunal after taking into account the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wire (P) Ltd. v. CC, Nagpur, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 has held as under :- "6. Drawing similar analogy we consider that subject to the reversal of Modvat credit taken with regard to the inputs which were utilised in the manufacture of duty free goods, the manufacturer could avail of the Modvat credit as well as full duty exemption under applicable small scale exemption notification w....