9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to August 1995. The factory was later closed down and the capital goods were removed on 26.12.2006, after payment of excise duty on the transaction value - the demand is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/13/2009 - 41004/2017 - Dated:- 16-6-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate for the appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per : Bench The appellants had taken Modvat Credit totally amounting to ₹ 65,92,828/- during the period from May 1995 to August 1995 under capital goods on Automatic Vacuum Metallization Plant complete unit Model TOPMET 2450 C along with sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No. 39/2007 dated 13.11.2007 was introduced as proviso under Rule 3 (5) of CCR 2004, requiring the manufacturer/provider of output services to pay an amount equal to the cenvat credit taken on the capital goods reduced by 2.5% for each quarter of a year part thereof from the date of taking credit. That therefore prior to 31.11.2007, on removal of used capital goods on which the assesse has already taken credit, and the capital goods having been used in the factory, there was no legal provision requiring the manufacturer to reverse the credit or pay an amount equal to the Cenvat credit taken on the said capital goods. That the appellants had removed only the used capital goods and there was no removal on capital goods as such . Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions made before us that appellants have removed the capital goods after more than 10 years and that also after being used in their factory for a long time. The cenvat credit was taken in May 1995 to August 1995. The factory was later closed down and the capital goods were removed on 26.12.2006, after payment of excise duty on the transaction value. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navodhya Plastic Industries Ltd. (supra) has considered the issue and observed that when capital goods are removed after use it cannot be said that the goods are removed as such for the purpose of reversing the entire credit taken at the time of receiving the capital goods as prescribed in Rule 3 (5) of CCR 2004. Larger Bench in the said case h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
