2004 (5) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in question were manufactured by other manufacturers and those manufacturers had paid appropriate duty at the time of removal of these goods. The appellant had only taken credit of the duty paid by those manufacturers as those goods were supposed to be used as inputs in the production of final products. The duty liability of those inputs remain, already determined and discharged at the time of their original removal. There is no provision in Central Excise law for reassessment of goods, which had once been removed after payment of duty. Therefore, as held by this Tribunal in its earlier decision, what an assessee is required to do when he removes inputs as such can only be to restore the credit, which he had taken. In the present cases, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant took us through the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Limited - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 228 (Tribunal.-LB) and CCE, Coimbatore v. American Auto Service - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 71 and pointed out that dealing with the same issue of removal of inputs, the Tribunal held that what was required was only restoration of the original position by levying the same rate of duty at which he has taken the credit. The Larger Bench held as under:- 15. On consideration of the case law and the arguments advanced before us we are of the considered view that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the American Auto Service case has clearly explained the scope of Rule 57F (1)(ii) and the interpretation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l, the introduction of new Cenvat provision has not made any difference to this legal position. 4. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned SDR also. The relevant provision under the Cenvat Credit Rules, which came into force from July 2001, is sub-rule (4) of Rule 3. That sub-rule reads as under :- (4) When inputs or capital goods, on which Cenvat credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory the manufacturer of the final products shall pay an amount equal to the duty of excise which is leviable on such goods at the rate applicable to such goods on the date of such removal and on the value determined for such goods at the rate applicable to such goods on the date of such removal and on the va .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X