Case Law Details
Jyoti CNC Automation Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of notification no. 67/95-CE duly available on transfer of goods to additional premise, as additional premise is an extension of factory of the appellant.
Facts- The appellant is engaged in manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 84. Accordingly, the appellant manufactured five machines and due to space constraint, the appellant transferred machines under Notification No. 67/95-CE.
Pursuant to Audit, a notice to show cause was issued seeking recovery under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a duty of Rs. 14,14,702/- in respect of aforesaid five machines transferred by the appellant to its additional premise on the ground that the said additional premise is not registered under the Act and hence benefit of duty exemption under notification no. 67/95-CE envisaged for captive consumption is not admissible to the appellant.
Conclusion- Held that additional premise is an extension of factory of the appellant and hence benefit of notification 67/95-CE cannot be denied to the appellant. Further,it can be seen that even if appellant would have paid duty the same would have been available as cenvat credit; the situation is therefore revenue neutral, in the circumstances, demand of duty on transfer of such capital goods on the ground that the other premise is to be treated as separate premise requiring separate registration under the Act is not tenable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
