9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants, on two occasions, removed from their factory capital goods on which Cenvat credits had been availed and which had been used in the factory for the manufacture of final products. The first removal was on 11-2-2002, and the second on 2-5-2003. The removal of capital goods on the first occasion was made in terms of the erstwhile provisions of Rule 57S(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is asking for duty equal to Cenvat Credit availed in terms of sub-rule 4 of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 as amended under the Cenvat Credit (Second Amendment) Rules, 2003. This sub-rule which came into force on 1-3-2003 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 product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli [Appeal No. E/421/2005] [2005 (190) E.L.T. 450 (Tri. - Bang.), wherein, in respect of a debonded EOU, it was held, for a comparable period, that there was nothing in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for demanding duty on Cenvated capital goods removed after use in the factory of production of final products. On the time-bar issue also, the assessee seems to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lously followed by the assessee. In these circumstances, it can hardly be said that the assessee conducted themselves with intent to evade payment of duty. Prima facie, they have a good case on limitation as well. 3. In the result, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
