9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1154 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of Credit - Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules Clearance of capital goods as such - Waiver of Pre-deposit Assessee contended that they have not removed the capital goods as such - it was removed as used capital goods Held that - Following CCE Vs. Rogini Mills Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 424 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - They have rightly paid the duty on the transaction value - Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, as amended by Notification No. 39/2007 provides that on removal of used capital goods, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken on the said capital goods reduced by 2.5% for each quarter of a year or part from the date of taking the CENVAT credit Pre-deposit of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty stayed till the disposal stay granted.
Issues:
1. Liability to reverse CENVAT credit on cleared capital goods. 2. Interpretation of Rule 3(4) and Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. 3. Applicability of judicial decisions on similar cases. Analysis: Issue 1: Liability to reverse CENVAT credit on cleared capital goods The applicant, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, availed CENVAT credit on capital goods during 1995-98 and later cleared them as used capital goods. The demand of duty of Rs.11,93,933/- along with interest and penalty was raised, alleging that the capital goods were cleared as such, necessitating the reversal of the credit availed. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand. Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 3(4) and Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules The applicant argued that Rule 3(4) mandates payment when inputs or capital goods are removed as such, whereas in this case, the goods were cleared as used capital goods, justifying the duty paid on transaction value. Referring to Rule 3(5) amended by Notification No. 39/2007, the applicant calculated a reduced credit reversal amount of Rs.5,07,991/-, contrary to the duty paid of Rs.9,02,036/-. Citing judicial precedents like CCE Vs. Cummins India Ltd., the applicant contended that the duty calculation was incorrect. Issue 3: Applicability of judicial decisions on similar cases The AR supported the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, referencing the Tribunal's decision in Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE favoring the Revenue. However, the applicant highlighted High Court decisions in their favor, such as CCE Vs. Rogini Mills Ltd. and CCE Vs. Raghav Alloys Ltd., indicating a precedent supporting their position. In conclusion, the Tribunal, considering the High Court decisions favoring the assessee, granted a waiver of predeposit for the duty amount, interest, and penalty, staying the recovery during the appeal's pendency. This judgment underscores the significance of legal interpretations, precedents, and the application of statutory rules in determining the liability for reversing CENVAT credit on cleared capital goods.
|
