2008 (6) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are as follows: (a) The appellant has several manufacturing units. The dispute relates to valuation of goods which are transferred inter-units and consequent availment of Cenvat credit by the recipient units. The appellant has two of their units at Padi and Polambakkam (both near Chennai),  wherein they manufacture  items like lined shoe assembly, servo sub-assembly, TMC assembly, back plate assembly, wheel cylinder assembly and calliper sub-assembly. They are transferring these goods to their factories in Gurgaon where they manufacture brake assembly and calliper assembly. The entire production of the said finished goods from the Gurgaon units was being sold to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (b) While clearing the goods from their....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dition of 30% of the provisional cost of production was only with a view to take care of any possible escalation in the price of inputs. There was no accumulated credit with the Chennai units which could not be utilised by the Chennai units. They have paid substantial amounts of duty from PLA in respect of each of the Chennai units. He also submits that there has been no dispute raised about the higher provisional value adopted at the time of clearance from the Chennai units. There is no refund claim by the Chennai units after finalisation of the value in respect of clearance made from the Chennai units. In the light of these facts, the credit taken by the Gurgaon units based on actual duty paid by the Chennai units is in order. 4.2. He ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ished goods. 4.5. The appellants availed credit on the strength of the invoice issued by the two units as manufacturer. The appellants were entitled to avail the credit of duty paid by the two units on the various goods cleared by them. The impugned order denying credit on the ground that the credit should be restricted to the duty payable on the actual price is ex-facie erroneous. 4.6. The appellants submit that the department having accepted by the duty payment by the two units and not attempting to refund the excess duty paid to them, cannot deny credit to the appellants on the ground that the duty should have been paid by the two units on the lesser value. 5. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the reasoning of the Commission....