2026 (1) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als-II), Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee who is the Appellant here, in this Appeal, are registered for manufacture of Trucks and Commercial Vehicles and their parts and accessories falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had availed CENVAT credit of Rs.1,19,38,212/- on the basis of invoice No. 2140080001 dated 07.07.2012 issued by M/s.KLT Automotive and Tubular Products Ltd. (KLT, for short) for 'Kink Bending Machine' without the receipt of the goods into the factory premises. A Show Cause Notice No.42/16 dated 30.09.2016 was issued to demand recovery of the said credit and appropriate the amount already reversed by them on 17.01.2014 apart from charging interest and imposin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lised. 4. After hearing the Respondent-Assessee, the First Appellate Authority vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 525/2017 dated 29.12.2017 allowed the Revenue's Appeal, which has given rise to the present Appeal before this forum. 5. We have heard Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Deputy Commissioner for the Revenue; perused the documents placed on Appeal record before us and the case law relied upon during hearing before us. 6. It was contended that the 'Kink Bending Machines' used for manufacture of chassis frame was installed in the premises of the job worker, M/s KLT Automotive and Tubular Products; that M/s Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Private Ltd. (Appellant) hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vider of output service.' Hence, it was argued that in terms of the Rule, an Assessee is allowed to retain the credit on goods which have been sent on job work. In the present case, the Assessee owing to the size and weight of the Kink Bending Machine did not physically bring the machine to its factory premises, there is also no dispute about the fact that the Assessee is the owner of the machine. There is also no dispute about the said machines exclusively used by M/s.KLT for the manufacture of chassis frames supplied to the Assessee. In such a case, the Assessee submits that they are eligible for taking and retention of credit as per provisions of Rule 4(5)(a). Amendment to Rule 4(5)(a) in 2015 clarifies the position that goods can be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ELT 990 (Tri.-Chennai). 9. In the case of OPG Metals [supra], it has been as held as under: "7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2006(194) EL.T. 3 (S.C.) examined the terms 'within the factory of production', though in connection with entitlement of credit for inputs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the term means only such generation of electricity or steam which is used within the factory would qualify as an intermediate product. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 960 (Tri-Del.), the Tribunal held that mere location of capital goods outside the factory premises is no gro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rsal of Cenvat credit would be revenue neutral as the appellant is entitled to take credit on such amount as soon as he receives the capital goods back from the job worker's premises. This being the case, I do not find any reason for reversal of the Cenvat credit on the capital goods which were found in the factory premises of the job worker, who is undisputedly one of the group concerns of the appellant. I also find that the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd. v CCE - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 18 (Tribunal) = 2007(8) S.T.R. 318 (Tribunal) will cover the issue in favour of the assessee in this case. The ratio of the decision in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd. was taken in appeal by the Revenu....