Goods and Services Tax

M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

2018 (7) TMI 610 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – capital goods sent to job-worker premises not brought back – Held that:- The appellants after shifting the capital goods to their job worker in 2005 has issued a returnable delivery challan with central excise invoice and also paid duty. Thereafter in 2011, though invoices were issued showing that the capital goods were turned to the appellant’s factory, they have not been actually returned – The only explanation given by the appellant is that the documents evidencing that the goods have been returned is not traceable. Such a flimsy explanation is not acceptable.

Demand upheld – appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – Appeal No. E/40354/2018 – Final Order No. 41953 / 2

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ks and reversed the same while removing the capital goods. Later, basing on three invoices dated 9.5.2011, the appellant again availed credit on these capital goods, although the goods were not received back into the appellant s factory. It is seen again that the appellant raised further three invoices dated 17.5.2011 so as to shift the capital goods to M/s. Shanthi Casting Works by paying duty of ₹ 82,400/-. Since the availment of credit on 9.5.2011, without receiving the inputs into the factory was ineligible, show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of the credit to the tune of ₹ 5,92,946/- along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand,

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

,946/- showing that the capital goods are returned to the appellant s factory. However, the goods were not returned. The appellant has availed credit of the said amount though the goods were not returned. Further, another invoice of ₹ 82,400/- was raised showing that the capital goods are again shifted to the job worker for which also they have availed credit. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of wrongful availment of credit and the demand, interest and the penalty imposed is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After hearing the submissions and perusing the records, it is brought out that the appellants after shifting the capital goods to their job worker in 2005 has issued a returnable delivery challan with central excise invo

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Leave a Reply