2018 (12) TMI 923 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – inputs – bought out items – certain items which are brought into the factory by the appellant and cleared along with the final product which was exported to Vietnam – Held that:- The very same issue has been analyzed in the case of KCP Ltd. [2018 (12) TMI 845 – CESTAT CHENNAI] and the Tribunal has held that the credit to be eligible – credit allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal Nos. E/40790 to 40792/2018 – Final Order Nos. 43075-43077/2018 – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Senthil Nathan, Consultant for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of machineries for sugar and cement industry. They export the impugned goods to Vietnam and other countries. The appellant availed CENVAT credit in respect of certain items which were not manufactured by them but were purchased and cleared alon
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
inal product and also whose value has been added in the assessable vale of the final product. In addition, he relied upon the decision in the case of KCP Ltd. vide Final Order No. 42890 to 42901/2018 dated 16.11.2018 and submitted that in the case of their own sister concern, the very same issue has been analyzed and decided by the Tribunal wherein the credit was held to be eligible. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to the eligibility of credit on certain items which are brought into the factory by the appellant and cleared along with the final product which was exported to Vietnam. The very same issue has been analyzed in the case of KCP Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal has held that the credit to be eligible. The decision in the case of Thermax Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2016 (337) ELT 456 (Tri. Mum.) was relied by the Tribunal to decide the eligibility of credit. The rele
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed and bought out items, all duty paid by the respective manufacturers, which was intended to constitute a complete sugar plant in Vietnam. The show cause notice dated 29.3.1996 at para 2.0, also narrates that the disputed bought out goods were used only for receipt and export, as such . xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.2 Ld. counsel has also drawn our attention to Board s clarification No. 607/44/2001-CX dated 13.12.2001, clarifying the scope of the said Rule 16. Ld. counsel has also pointed out that the said Rules was further amended vide Central Excise Rules, 2002, which made the scope of Rule 16 even wider. xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in their subsequent judgment in Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. (supra), has been followed by the Tribunal in Thermax Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2016 (337) E|LT 456 (Tri. Mum.) wherein it has been held that bought out items used in erection of boilers at customer s site are inputs
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =