TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lear the same along with the tyres to the original equipment manufacturers and overseas purchasers; the appellants have availed CENVAT credit on the said tubes and flaps which is disputed by the Department by issuing a show-cause notice dated 04.04.2011 covering the period from March 2006 to January 2011; the said show-cause notice was adjudicated vide impugned order dated 10.05.2012 wherein demand of CENVAT Credit of Rs.2,97,33,358/- was confirmed along with equal penalty; penalty was also imposed on Shri Yashwant Singh and Shri R.K. Gupta, the Directors of the Company; therefore, M/s Goodyear and the other two Directors are in appeal before us. All the appeals are taken up together for discussion and consideration. 2. Shri B.L. Narasimha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der No.A/60098-60099/202 dated 18.04.2023. * SRF Ltd.- TIOL-523-CESTAT-DEL. * Commissioner of CGST, Alwar Vs Balkrishna Industries Limited (vice-versa)- Final Order Nos.50243-5244/2023 dated 23.02.2023 affirmed by Rajasthan High Court Order dated 11.08.2023. * Apollo Tyres Ltd.- 2014-TIOL-3135-CESTAT-AHM. * Balkrishna Industries Ltd.- 2007 (217) ELT 228 (Tri. Del.) affirmed by Rajasthan High Court vide Order dated 04.01.2017. * Apollo Tyres- 2014-TIOL-555-CESTAT-BANG. * Balkrishna Industries Vs C.G., S.T. and C.E- Alwar (Vice Versa) Final Order No.52292-52293/2018 dated 26.06.2018. 3. Learned Counsel further submits that it is not disputed that the value of the tubes and flaps is included in the assessable value of tyres and as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009 on the very same issue and therefore, the impugned show-cause notice dated 04.04.2011 cannot be issued invoking the extended period; as the demand is not sustainable, penalty on the company and on the Directors cannot be imposed. He relies on Zapak Digital Entertainment Ltd.- Final Order No. A/85107/2023 dated 31.01.2023 (Tri. Mumbai). 5. Shri Nikhil Kumar Singh, learned Authorized Representative for the Department submits that the tubes and flaps are just packed along with the tyres manufactured by them and are not further used in the manufacture of final product and therefore, it would not qualify to be called input or capital goods under Rule 2 (k) of CCR, 2004; the appellants did not inform the Department the fact of availment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth sides and perused the records of the case. The brief issue involved in the case is whether the appellants are eligible for CENVAT credit, on the flaps and tubes supplied along with tyres cleared by them in a set packing. It is the contention of the Department that the said tubes and flaps are not used in the manufacture of the tyres and as such do not qualify to be "inputs" in view of the definition given under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004. On the other hand, the argument of the appellant is that the tubes and flaps are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly; they also contend that alternatively, the same may be considered as accessories of the final products; either way, the credit is admis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... personal use or consumption of any employee; and (F) any goods which have no relationship whatsoever with the manufacture of a final product. Explanation. - For the purpose of this clause, "free warranty" means a warranty provided by the manufacturer, the value of which is included in the price of the final product and is not charged separately from the customer;] 9. It is seen that the definition of Inputs as above has a wider connotation and the inputs can be used directly or indirectly and may or may not be contained in the final product. Moreover, they can also be accessories of the final products cleared along with the final products. It is not the case of the Department that these inputs fall under any exclusion clause of the de....