9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Circular No.495/16/1993-Cus. dt.26.5.93. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. - taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I take a lenient view that the respondents are not liable for penalty. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and OIO is restored to the extent of confirming the demand - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/739/2004 - FINAL ORDER No. 41049/2014 - Dated:- 19-12-2014 - R. Periasami, Member (T),J. For the Appellant : Mr R Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Mr M Kannan, Adv. ORDER The appeal is taken up for denovo consequent upon the order dt. 29.1.2014 of Madurai Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in C.M.A.(MD) No.621 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of CCE Salem Vs Rogini Mills Ltd. - 2011 (264) ELT 367 (Mad.). He further submits that in the recent Tribunal's Final Order No.40405/2014 dt. 18.7.2014 in the case of CCE Salem Vs K.P.R. Mills Pvt. Ltd. by relying Hon'ble High Court's order (supra) allowed the Revenue's appeal. He relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE Hyderabad Vs Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. reported in 2013-TIOL-1773-CESTAT-MAD-LB. [2013 (298) ELT 541 (Tri.-LB)]. 4. On the other hand, Ld.advocate for the respondent has reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submits that capital goods were cleared on payment of duty by adopting depreciation under Income Tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of CCE Hyderabad Vs Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. in para-10 held as under :- 10. The use of capital goods is to spread over many years. A decision to the effect that assessees can bring in capital goods, use it for a few days and then remove it without reversal of any Cenvat credit taken is not consistent with the overall scheme of Cenvat credit and can lead to abuse of the scheme. Considering this aspect and the legislative history and the Circular of C.B.E. C., 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. 6. By resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
