9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is that the appellant have removed capital goods to the job workers under the cover of challan issued under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Duty was demanded equivalent to the Cenvat Credit for non-return of capital goods within 180 days. Accordingly, the demand of duty, interest and penalty was confirmed. In another issue, the appellant written off the value of the inputs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, they paid the entire duty in the month of July 2008 and September 2008, i.e. within 180 days of issue of challan. Therefore, within 180 days, the appellant was not required to pay the duty. Therefore, there is no question of interest and penalty related to the Cenvat amount of capital goods removed under Rule 4 (5) (a). 3. As regards the written off quantity, the appellant immediately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent for job work under Rule 4 (5) (a), the dispute between the Revenue and the assesee is whether the capital goods sent for job works were exceeded 180 days or otherwise. As per Rule 4 (5) (a), the Cenvat Credit is required to be reversed only after 180 days. Therefore, within 180 days from the date of sending the capital goods for job works neither any demand arise nor any interest. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r job-work. 6. As regards the written off the value in respect of obsolete input, I find that since the input was subsequently removed from the factory as a scrap, the Cenvat Credit is required to be reversed. It is also observed that the appellants have paid the duty along with interest. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to impose penalty commensurate to the Cenvat amount in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
