9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n error in treating the expression transaction value as assessable value on which duty is paid. Transaction value is the amount paid by one person to another for the goods or services received. Therefore, if the respondent had sold its capital goods to another company, there will be a transaction value i.e., the price for which it had sold the used capital goods. A plain reading Rule 3 (5A) of CCR leaves no manner of doubt that there would be a transaction value when goods are sold, even if such goods are not manufactured by the seller. This is a fit case to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine Rule 3 (5A) of CCR as applicable during the relevant period and also examine what is value of the capital goods on which the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order. 3. We have heard learned authorized representative for the Revenue and learned Chartered Accountant for the respondent and perused the records. 4. The case of the department is that if capital goods on which CENVAT credit has been taken are removed after using them for sometime, the assessee has to pay an amount under Rule 3 (5A) of CCR which is equal to the CENVAT credit taken on the said capital goods reduced by 2.5% per quarter of use through a straight line method. It is undisputed that the goods were used by the respondent for 10 years before removing them. Therefore, if the depreciation @ 2.5% per quarter is considered, the total amount of depreciation over 10 years would be 100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 18.02.2014 and it is the case of the department that the respondent had sold the goods for Rs. 11,54,57,738/- and, therefore, they were required to pay an amount equal to 12.36% of this amount i.e. Rs. 1,42,70,575/- along with interest and penalty. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest under section 11AA and imposed a penalty of equal amount under section 11AC read with Rule 15 of CCR. 6. On appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner holding that the concept of transaction value is not applicable to the goods which are not manufactured by the respondent. 7. It is evident from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) completely misread Rule 3 (5A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
