9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant is a manufacturer of mopeds and motor vehicle parts. The Appellant purchased two machines as capital goods vide invoice No. 22 dated 01-12-2004 and invoice No. 26 dated 16-2-2005 from M/s Marshall Industries and availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on the machine and took credit on 3-12-2004 and 17-2-2005 respectively. After use of the machines for one year and more in the factory, the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er price of Rs. 30,00,000/- as compared to Rs. 33,79,400/- at which the goods were originally sold. At that time they paid duty amounting to 4,89,600/-on the revised price. This transaction is in dispute. The revenue contests duty equal to the credit taken on the re-entry of the machines into the factory on 28-03-2006 should have been paid though the machines were sold, subsequently at a lower pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses of the provider of output service, the manufacturer of the final products or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs or capital goods and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in rule 9." 6. The contention of the Appellant is that the above rule will apply only to inputs and capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he thrust of the department#s argument is that the machines were not used after its return into the factory on 28-03-2006. So the credit that was taken on the date of return should be reversed when the machines were finally sold at lower price later. 8. Considered the arguments on both sides. 9. The argument that sale of the final sale of the goods should be related to the re-entry of the machin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
