9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. [2007 (3) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN] wherein it is clearly held that if the capital goods which are not the one subjected to availing of MODVAT credit by the manufacturer, no duty is payable on removal of its waste and scrap from its factory. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20229/2018-SM, E/20233/2018-SM, E/20235/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20551-20553/2018 - Dated:- 11-4-2018 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Kuriyan Thomas, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The appellants have filed these three appeals against the common impugned order dated 28.7.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A). Since the issue involved in all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,94,975/- on the capital goods sold as scrap. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice pointing out that the machinery was dismantled as per the direction of the Kerala Pollution Control Board and the scrap was generated from dismantling all the used capital goods which was removed during the period from July 2007 to March 2012. The appellant also submitted that the plant removed was set up in the year 1984 i.e., before the introduction of CENVAT/MODVAT Credit on capital goods and no MODVAT credit was availed on these capital goods. After following due process, the Original Authority confirmed the demand in the show-cause notice vide Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2012 and also vide Order-in-Original dated 28.6.2013. Aggrieved by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricals Co. vs. CCE: 2013 (290) ELT 404 (Tri.-Del.) Nagpur Power Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (346) ELT 315 (Tri.-Mum.) Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (343) ELT 645 (Tri.-Del.) CCE, Chandigarh vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.: 2017 (358) ELT 387 (Tri.-Chand.) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. UOI: 2011 (273) ELT 10 (SC) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various decisions relied upon by the appellant, I find that it is an admitted fact that the capital goods were procured prior to the introduction of MODVAT credit on capital goods and therefore, no credit was availed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
