9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rutiny of the appellant's record by the Departmental Officers it was observed that appellants had purchased an Electric Motor from M/s Crompton Greeves Ltd., Mumbai under Invoice No. 357 dated 09.01.2003 on payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,32,280/-. The appellants had availed 50% of the CENVAT credit on 10.01.2003 vide RG-23C Pt-II Entry No. 78 and the balance 50% credit was availed on 01.04.2003 vide RG-23C Pt-II Entry No. 48. The said credit was subsequently utilized for the payment of duty on their finished goods. Later the appellants cleared the said Electric Motor after user, under Invoice No. 2863 dated 04.11.2005 on payment of duty of Rs. 86,400/-, instead of reversing the credit amount of Rs. 1,32,280/- However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or premise of the provider of the 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", have been amended vide CENVAT credit (10th amendment) Rule 2007 and notified vide Notification No. 39/2007-CE(NT) dated 13.11.2007 wherein the second proviso was added under Rule 3(5) reads as follows:- "Provided also that if the capital goods, on which CENVAT Credit has been taken, are removed after being used, the manufacturer or provider of output s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursuant to use is not 'Removal as such' and duty paid on transaction value at the time of removal, prior to 13.11.2007, is correct as held by the Tribunal. Similar view have been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Cummins India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2009 (234) ELT A 120. It is further urged that the show-cause notice dated 21.04.2009 is time-barred, as the transaction had taken place in November, 2005, duly disclosed. 4. The learned A.R. relies on the impugned order, but is unable to dispute the aforementioned rulings relied on by appellant. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that the facts are covered by the ruling of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Raghav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
