9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er chapter 84 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the year 1999, 2001 and 2003, they had imported machineries as capital goods and availed Cenvat Credit. The said capital goods after use were sold in 2005 and 2006. The appellant paid the duty on the said used capital goods on transaction value. A Show Cause Notice dated 30.10.2006 was issued proposing to demand of duty of equal amount of credit as availed by them, on the said capital goods. The Ld. Advocate fairly submits that the issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-III Vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. - 2013 (298) ELT 541 (Tri. - LB) 3. The Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall in no case be less than the amount of credit that has been allowed in respect of such capital goods under rule 57Q : (b) where capital goods are removed after being used in the factory for home consumption on payment of duty of excise or for export under rebate on payment of duty of excise, such duty of excise shall be calculated by allowing deduction of 2.5 per cent of credit taken for each quarter of a year of use or fraction thereof, from the date of availing credit under rule 57Q; 7. During 1-9-2004 to 13-11-2007 the provision in force read as under : With effect from 10-9-2004, when new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were introduced, the relevant rule, i.e. Rule 3(5), read as below : When inputs or capital goods, on which Cenvat cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the view that we should respectfully follow the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. Rogini Mills Ltd. (supra) and the reference made to this Larger Bench is answered accordingly. 5. It is seen that the Larger Bench had already taken into consideration the change of law during different periods. Hence, it is appropriate that the matter should be examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. (supra). At this stage, the Ld. AR submits that para 10.13 of the adjudication order may be considered. He further submits that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
