Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.10/2006 (M-III), dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Exci
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on a single principle: where the capital goods of a component manufacturer are not shown to have been used for any purpose other than that required by the respondent manufacturer, the respondent is not disentitled to capital goods credit merely because the goods were installed on the component manufacturer's premises. Where the components were cleared to customers who are the respondent's own customers, required to take delivery of the respondent's goods consequent upon manufacture, such customers are not strangers, and the clearance does not by itself displace the respondent's entitlement to capital goods credit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.10/2006 (M-III), dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD. RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR)
For the Respondent Shri C. Saravanan, Adv.
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 08-05-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40548 / 2015
The dispute as to whether capital goods of the respondent utilised for its purpose in the premises of the component manufacturer for the respondent shall disentitle it to capital goods credit.
2. There is no finding by the authority below to show that the component manufacturer utilised the capital goods for any other purpose other than required by the respondent.
3. Learned DR says that there is an allegation in the show-cause notice that the components were cleared to different customers. But learned counsel for the respondent submits that the customers were of the respondent, who were required to take delivery of the goods of the respondent consequent upon manufacture by the component manufacturers. They are not strangers. On such premise learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the respondent.
4. The order of the learned Commissioner does not appear to have suffered from any legal infirmity for which that is upheld on the ground that absence of use of the capital goods for the purpose other than the purpose of respondent shall entitle the respondent to the capital goods credit. For such logical reasons, Revenues appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 21-05-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 08.05.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 08.05.2015
Fair Order Typing 21.05.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
4 E/00279/2006
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free