2006 (2) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. [Order]. - The appellant-company have two manufacturing units in Thirupur, Unit I and Unit III. Unit No. I (appellant-unit) removed old machinery, on payment of duty, to Unit III sometime in 2003. The payment of duty was on value depreciated to the extent of 85.15% in terms of rates of depreciation provided under Schedule XIV to the Companies Act, 1956. The department found that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated 1-7-2002 read with Circular No. 495/16/93-Cus.-VI, dated 26-5-93 (as claimed by the Revenue). Ld. Counsel has argued that the Customs Circular cannot be made applicable to Central Excise valuation. Ld. SDR, on the other hand, submits that what was made applicable by the Central Excise Circular to depreciation of value of second-hand machinery was not any customs circular as such but only th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hereafter subject to an overall limit of 70% Both circulars were issued by CBEC. The authority of the Board to adopt relevant provisions of Customs Circular for Central Excise purpose is not in dispute. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, it has to be held that the depreciation of value of the subject machinery cannot exceed the maximum limit of 70% prescribed by the Board. It has been submitted by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X