BHARAT FORGE LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against Orders -in -Appeal No. P.III/VM/100/09, dated 16 -7 -2009 and P.III/VM/63/10, dated 29 -3 -2010. The issue involved in these cases is regarding the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the quantity of "Dies Block" which were consumed in the manufacture of "Dies" which were used, according to the Department, exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods viz. "Aluminium Road Wheels" and cleared without payment of duty to the defence establishment in terms of Notification No. 4/2006 -C.E. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised along with interest and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved by such orders, appeals were preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, after following due process of law, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant.

(2.) Learned Counsel would submit that the "Dies Block" which was used as an input on which Central Excise duty is paid. It is her submission that by utilizing the said "Dies Block", the appellant manufacture "Die" which are further used for manufacturing of "Aluminium Road Wheels". It is her submission that "Dies" are exempted by Notification No. 67/95 and "Aluminium Road Wheels" 'which was manufactured and cleared to defence establishment on payment of duty if they are cleared as spares and without payment of duty if they are cleared for the original equipment, i.e., tanks. She would submit that the appellant had during the earlier round of hearing submitted evidence of payment of duty on such "Aluminium Road Wheels" manufactured out of "Dies Block" No. HBLT 02108008 and HFNB 04008008. She would then draw my attention to the literature of the "Dies Block" and submit that these "Dies Block" are used for top and bottom having end Sl. No. 8008. It is her submission that the invoices which were given by the appellant during earlier hearing were sent for verification and the report is already filed which indicates that appellant had used the "Dies" for; manufacture of "Aluminium Road Wheels" which are exempted is a wrong findings of the report of the lower authorities. It is her submission that in the appellant's own case, vide Order No. PIII/401/05, dated 17 -11 -2005, the issue is settled by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their favour and the said order -in -appeal has not contested by the department.

(3.) Learned D.R. on the other hand would draw my attention to the report submitted by the Asst. Commissioner (L & T), Pune -IV Commissionerate and stated that on directions of this Tribunal, "Die" No. HBLT02108008 and HFNB04008008 was physically verified by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune East and reported that the said "Dies Block" were used in the manufacture of "Aluminium Road" used in "Wheels" which are exempted and supplied to defence establishment. He would submit that this report was filed by the authorities on 1 -12 -2014 and is on record. He would submit that the invoice which was prepared by the appellant in that case is a different "Dies Block" No. He would submit that in the engineering field a little change in the "Die" and "Dies Block" will amount to a new "Die" and "Dies Block". Hence the Cenvat credit denied to the appellant is correct.