9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short-payment of duty had occurred on removal of capital goods in September, 2004. In view of the fact that the respondents had intimated particulars of payment of duty on removal of the capital goods in their monthly return for September, 2004, the allegation of suppression of fact cannot be held to have been substantiated. Therefore, the demand is barred by limitation. – Demand is not sustainabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rules, 2004 (CCR), when credit-availed capital goods are removed 'as such', the assessee is required to reverse equal amount of credit as taken at the time of receipt of the capital goods in its factory. Relying on a couple of decisions of this Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the demand. He held that removal of used capital goods was not removal of capital goods 'as such'. Rule 3(4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital goods after use. In view of this decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. The ld Consultant submits that the particulars of removal of the impugned goods on payment of duty on its transaction value had been intimated to the department in its monthly return for September '04. The Show Cause Notice had been issued invoking larger period allegi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he allegation of suppression of fact cannot be held to have been substantiated. Therefore, the demand is barred by limitation. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. 4. As the cross-objections filed by the respondents do not seek any other relief, the same is dismissed as in fructuous. (Dictated and pronounced in open cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
