TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 would not apply to such clearance and there is no need for reversing any Cenvat credit because they had actually used the capital goods in the manufacture of excisable goods - appellants have paid duty based on transaction value - appeal is allowed - E/2051/2009-SM(BR) - 860/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 9-11-2011 - Shri Mathew John, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri O.P. Agarwal, C.A., for the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, they rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 29 (Trib.-LB). A demand for excise duty based on such argument was issued to the appellants which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the appellants under Rule 25 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 2004 to demand any duty on account of removal of such used capital goods. Nevertheless, the appellants have paid duty based on transaction value. Further, he argues that this issue has been considered by the Tribunal and different High Courts holding that Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable to the situation. He relies on the following decisions :- (1) M/s. RPG Cables ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts India Pvt. Ltd - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 119 (Tri.-Mum.) 5. This is an issue on which legal position changed a few times. The interpretation of the legal position by Judicial forums are also contradictory. I note that two different High Courts have held that provision of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which is the provision relied upon by Revenue will not be applicable to the situation at h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
