9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd their removal does not attract payment of duty in the matter in terms of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat credit rules. The appellants had sold the capital goods and paid duty on the basis of the transaction value arrived at, at the time of sale of used capital goods. This value has not been accepted by the Revenue and the revenue has taken the value of the capital goods as prevailing at the time of installation. This is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submits that this very issue was decided in assessee s favour by this Bench in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Tirunelveli [2005 (190) E.L.T. 450 (Tri.-Bang.)]. The Chennai bench has also decided the issue in assessee s favour in the case of Salona Cotspin Ltd. v. CCE, Salem [2006 (201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts had a 100% EOU by name M/s. Madura Coats India Pvt. Ltd. 100% EOU. The said unit was debonded on the 3rd December 2001 after payment of appropriate duties on all inputs and machines lying in the factory. Thereafter, the appellants operated the said unit in the name and style of M/s. Madura Coats Ltd., Millennium Mills . Credit of duty was availed on inputs and machines lying at the time of debonding of 100% EOU. During July 2002, the appellants stopped their manufacturing activities and sold the capital goods to various consumers on payment of duty on the transaction value of the said machines removed during the period from 1-3-2003 to 31-7-2003. The jurisdictional officer demanded an amount of Rs. 1,35,260/- on the capital goods r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 /2002, 5. We have gone through the records of the case very carefully. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear finding that there is no provision to demand duty on removal of used Cenvated capital goods. He has also referred to the Board s Circular dated the 1st July 2002. We want to make it clear that the above Circular is applicable only to capital goods removed as such and not to the used Cenvated capital goods. In other words, the appellant is not required to pay duty when the used machinery is sold. Hence, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. The findings in the case of Salona Cotspin Ltd. in para 7 are reproduced herein below. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The appellants have remove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
