AMD INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., GHAZIABAD
LAWS(CE)-2015-4-10
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 07,2015

Amd Industries Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of C. Ex. And S.T., Ghaziabad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ASHOK JINDAL,MEMBER (J) - (1.)THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit on capital goods to the appellant. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported capital goods and had taken Cenvat credit on the CVD paid thereon. During the course of installation of the said capital goods they found that some parts of the capital goods are not properly functioning. Therefore, the said part of the capital goods was sent to the supplier of the goods located outside India. When the said part was exported for repairs and maintenance, the appellant reversed the Cenvat credit pertaining to that part. After repairs the appellant again received the goods from the supplier of the goods and paid the duty on the value addition done by the supplier of the goods and taken the Cenvat credit on CVD paid on the charges of repairs and maintenance and taken the Cenvat credit which has already been reversed by the appellant on export of the said part of the capital goods. The Revenue's allegation is that as the capital goods were not sent as such for repairs and maintenance, therefore, Rule 4, 5(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is further alleged that the invoices against which after repairs and maintenance of capital goods received by the appellant is not a proper document to avail Cenvat Credit on CVD paid by them at earlier stage. Therefore, both the lower authorities denied Cenvat Credit. Against the said order appellant is before me.
The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that facts of the case are not in dispute that on export of capital goods for repairs they have reversed the Cenvat credit. Therefore, on receiving back the said capital goods they are entitled to take Cenvat credit.

(2.)ON the other hand Ld. AR reiterated, the findings of the impugned order.
(3.)HEARD the parties. Considered the submissions.
In this case the facts which are admitted are as under: Initially capital goods received by the appellant and duty were paid thereon. The appellant took Cenvat credit on CVD paid on these capital goods. Some part of the capital goods was found to be defective and same was re -exported for repairs. The appellant reversed the Cenvat credit attributable to the parts exported for repairs. After repairs the capital goods received back by the appellant after CVD paid on the value addition done on account of repairs. The appellant took the Cenvat credit on CVD paid on value addition plus Cenvat credit reversed at the time of export. From the above facts it is clear that when the goods were sent for repairs by the appellant they have reversed the credit. Therefore, appellant are entitled to take Cenvat credit on receipt of the capital goods after repairs. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit and Cenvat credit denied by the lower authorities is totally incorrect. With these observations impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.