9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year 2000-01, it was found that the inputs totally valued at Rs. 1,05,60,430/- were shown as written off. As the appellants had not reversed the cenvat credit on the inputs so shown as written off in their balance sheet, Revenue entertained a view that credit reversal was required. The statement of Shri Kunal Bose, Senior Manager Finance was recorded on 18-10-2002 deposing that during the financial year 2000-01, they undertook the exercise of identifying the slow moving/obsolete raw material, intermediate components for sunglasses and frames which had gone out of fashion or were going out of fashion; that the value of raw material and intermediate components so identified was Rs. 1,05,60,430/- based on weight average method of valuation; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circular No. 101/12/95-CX., dated 22-9-1995 and Board Circular No. 645/36/2002-CX., dated 16-7-2002, the lower authorities held that the credit availed by the appellants on the inputs written off is appropriate. The above contention that even the said Board circular referred above is to the effect that where the inputs had not been removed from the factory and were lying there, the credit was not required to be reversed, was not found favour by the lower authority. 6. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to the notes of the accounts in the annual return of the company and the Auditor report read with the Director's report and has held that as per the policy decision of the management of the appellant company to writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (Tri.-Bang.) CCE v. Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 339 (Bom.) Phillips Electronics India Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 2011 (274) E.L.T. 311 (Tri.-Mum.) 8. The ratio of the above decisions is that merely writing off inputs in the financial accounts on account of the same being obsolete inputs does not require Cenvat credit reversal, when the goods were still lying in the factory premises. In as much as the issue stands decided by catena of decisions referred supra, we do not find any reason to take a different view. 9. At this stage, we may refer to Tribunal's decision in the case of Biotech Synergy Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 273 (Tri.-Del.) relied upon by the learned DR. We find that the facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. 12. [Per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. - I have gone through the order recorded by ld. Member (Judicial). While I agree with the operative part of the order, I find it necessary to make some observations. So I am recording this separate order. 13. This matter relates to inputs written off during the year 2000-01. Show Cause Notice is issued on 18-5-2004, and adjudicated on 25-10-2004. 14. Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were amended on 16-5-2005 to add a new sub-rule (5B) in Rule 3 reading as under : "(5B) If the value of any, (i) input, or (ii) capital goods before being put to use, on which CENVAT Cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
