9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents herein imported 3 Nos. of Cryogenic storage tanks under project import and paid countervailing duty at the rate of 10% under chapter heading 9801.00 on the value of Rs. 66,77,843/- and took credit on capital goods to the tune of Rs. 6,67,084/-. Out of the 3 tanks imported, the assessee-respondents have cleared one tank valued at Rs. 22,23,64/- to their own unit at Trichy, by reversing an amount of Rs. 2,22,361/-. This amount is proportionate to the Modvat credit taken against the said one tank, cleared to their Trichy unit. Proceedings were initiated for demanding duty on the ground that in terms of Rule 57S, whenever Modvat credit availed goods are cleared as such, duty has to be paid, as if the goods have been manufactured by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the words and that the matter should be governed by the language of the Notification". The Revenue has also referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Supreme Steel and Industries Ltd. reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) in support of their plea for allowing the appeal. 4. Shri T. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the assessee-respondents submitted that the order impugned is a well reasoned order and the reliance placed by the lower appellate authority in the order of the Tribunal in the case of Brown Boveri Limited (supra) is correct, inasmuch as the appeal filed by the Department against the said decision was dismissed as not pressed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and gone through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Revenue, did not want to argue the matter on merits. In any event, with the dismissal of the Revenue appeal, the law on the issue stands settled, in favour of the assessee, in terms of law laid down by the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the said case law is correct and cannot be found fault with. Further, the reliance placed by the lower appellate authority in the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. American Auto Service reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 71, in my view, is also correct. The Revenue has place reliance in the judgment of UOI v. Supreme Steel and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
