2017 (1) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case is that the appellant has removed worn out parts of the capital goods from the factory without payment of duty. The show cause notice was issued by the department demanding duty by invoking the provisions of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same, therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Ms. Anjali H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 911 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2013 (297) E.L.T.498 (Mad.) (iii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Belapur Vs. Reforms Machine Tools Ltd. 2007 (220) E.L.T. 171 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iv) Commissioner of C. Ex., Aurangabad Vs. Sanjivani (Takli) SSK Ltd. 2009 (235) E.L.T. 753 (Tri.-Mumbai) (v) Garden Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be paid only if the capital goods is removed as such. In the present case, it is undisputed that the worn out parts of the capital goods were cleared, therefore in case of used parts/capital goods Rule 3(4) is not applicable. The judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel support their case. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.  (Pronounced & Dictated in court)
Case laws, Decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X