9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the assessee taking the CENVAT credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not received back within one hundred and eighty days, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs or capital goods by debiting the CENVAT credit or otherwise, but the manufacturer can take the CENVAT cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r unused, were allowed to be removed from a factory only on payment of duty or on reversal of Cenvat credit taken. Initially, used capital goods could be removed after reversing proportionate credit depending upon the period of use, as per Notification 23/94-C.E. dated 20-5-1994. This system was later changed to charging duty on used capital goods, cleared on the transaction value as per Notification 6/2001-C.E. dated 1-3-2001 and w.e.f. 13-11-2007 vide Notification 39/2007-C.E., the concept of reversal of proportionate credit has been reintroduced. If the expression "as such" is held to cover only unused or new capital goods, manufacturers who wish to remove used capital goods to job workers' premises for testing, repairing reconditioning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssees was that they were not required to reverse the credit, in view of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); the assessees filed appeal before the Tribunal which held that, since the capital goods were received back after repair within a period of 180 days, the assessees were entitled to invoke the provisions of Rule 4(5) (a). It was an admitted position that the filter stacks were used in the assessees' factory. By constant use, in the passage of time, they got damaged, necessitating repairs. It is, therefore, clear that when the Tribunal held that the goods in question were covered under Rule 4(5)(a), it held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
