Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 306 - HC - Central ExciseWhether the CESTAT committed error in non-considering that the Respondents deliberately cleared goods under Rule 4(5) of CENVAT rules as if cleared for repairing/reconditioning i.e. Job work with intention to avoid payment of amount equal to CENVAT Credit as required under Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Rules and therefore contravened Rule 4(5) and Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Rules 2004? Held that: - It is not disputed that, before the amended Rule 3(5) came into force, the goods have been removed by the respondent. The word as such has been interpreted by this court and also by the Delhi High Court in case of Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (6) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and it has been held that, after retaining the goods for more than two years, the same have been sent back to the parent unit - Tribunal has rightly decided the issue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|