9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant. 2 The Department is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31-08-2005passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ("CESTAT", for short) in Appeal No. E/3824/03/Mum. By the impugned order, the CESTAT was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the Department and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad on 14-08-2003. 3 In fact, the Department had denied Credit to the respondent Assessee on capital goods received in the factory on 22-03-2000 although installed after 01-04-2000, and therefore, the Department had issued and subsequently confirmed a demand for Rs.2,90,880/- towards inad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 03-04-2000, and the relevant clause is at serial No. 8, which runs thus. "8. In the case of capital goods, the CENVAT rules do not provide installation of capital goods as a pre-requisite for taking CENVAT credit. The credit can be taken as and when the capital goods are received in the factory. For such capital goods which were received prior to 1.4.2000 but not installed upto1.4.2000 also, the CENVAT credit would also be admissible. It may, however, be noted that in respect of all capital goods whether received on or after 1.4.2000 or those that were received prior to 1.4.2000 but not yet installed, the condition that CENVAT credit only up to 50% of the total admissible amount would be available in the financial year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich allows 50% CENVAT Credit on capital goods received prior to 01-04-2000, but installed subsequent to 01-04-2000 in the financial year 2000-2001, is the clarification later in time and therefore, this clarification must supersede clause (5) contained in Circular/Letter dated 31st March, 2000. 6 Regarding other submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that prior to 01-04-2000, the Assessee was not enjoying MODVAT facility, and therefore, none of these Circulars apply to them, we are unable to accede to this submission because both the Circulars do not make any distinction between the Assessees which were enjoying MODVAT facility prior to 01-04-2000 and which were not so enjoying. In fact, on reference to first Circular, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
