2016 (12) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Panipat. The Department contended that they have to pay duty @ 16% Ad- valorem as prevailing at the time of clearance of such capital goods. The impugned order held that the capital goods were cleared after prolonged use and by applying Rule 3 (5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the duty liability @ 16% prevailing at the time of removal should be discharged - Held that: - a plain reading the provisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the provisions of Rule 3 (5) were not applicable to the appellants as the goods have been cleared after prolonged use and cannot be considered as clearance as such. However, in the present case, the appellants reversed whatever credit availed by them on such capital goods. In these circumstances, we find no justification to demand any extra amount from the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at credit taken on such capital goods initially. The Revenue, by entertaining a view that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the said capital goods at the rate applicable at the time of their clearance from the appellant s unit, proceeded to demand and recover the differential amount of ₹ 53,75,151/- on this ground. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal amount o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... all pay an amount equal to credit availed in respect of such capital goods. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that capital goods were cleared as waste and scrap. Accordingly, we find no reason to refer to the provisions of Rule 3 (5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In fact it is clear that Rule 3 (5) was amended w.e.f. 13/11/07 providing for reversal of credit based on dep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, we note that Rule 3 (5) cannot be considered as charging section to collect more revenue from the manufacturer. 3. In view of the clear legal provision, as discussed above, we find the impugned order is without merit and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Order pronounced in open court on 18/10/2016.) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X