9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, set aside the order of the original authority and allowed the appeal. Held that - there is no basis for demand of differential duty and imposition of penalty as held by the original authority. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- in terms of Invoice No. 216 dated 23-3-2006 and paid duty amounting to Rs. 20,800/-, that is by adopting the sale value at time of removal on 23-3-2006. The original authority holding that DG set has been cleared as such that is DG set and they ought to have paid duty equal to the credit availed by them amounting to Rs. 55,448/- and accordingly, confirmed differential duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2004. 5. Learned Consultant submits that they have used the DG set for more than 2 years for the intended purpose and sold them obviously at much lower price than the purchase price. The question of treating such used DG set as clearance of DG set as procured in 2002 does not arise. When the DG set was received in 2002, the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was in force which has specifically envis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court of Bombay in Appeal by the Department against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-III reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 911 (Tri.-Mumbai) as reported in 2009 (234) E.L.T. A120 (Bom.). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 had provisions relating to rate of duty and valuation applicable to cases of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed by the Bombay High Court. In view of the above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no basis for demand of differential duty and imposition of penalty as held by the original authority. Therefore, there is no valid ground for interfering with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 7. The appeal by the Department is rejected. Cross-Objection which is merely in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
