TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cenvat credit and can lead to abuse of the scheme – Following CCE Salem Vs Rogini Mills Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 424 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] – Decided in favour of Assessee. - E/00413/2012 - MISC. ORDER Nos.42707-42709/2013 - Dated:- 13-11-2013 - Shri Pradip Kumar Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S.M.V. Raman, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) ORDER Per Mathew John 1. In this proceeding, a reference made by a Single Member Bench of the Tribunal at Bangalore to a Larger Bench for deciding an issue is being considered. The reference was made by MISC Order No.260/2010 dt. 30.4.2010. 2. The relevant facts of the case that arise for consideration are that the respondents are manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Larger Bench in the case of Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. is silent on the depreciation aspect to be granted on the capital goods removed after use and proportionate reversal of credit and whether the same needs to be addressed to by a further Larger Bench. (ii) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Geeta Industries Pvt. Ltd. has correctly granted the benefit of depreciation and subsequent proportionate reversal of credit, in the absence of specific provisions. 3. After the Single Member Bench made this reference vide Misc. Order No.260/10 dt. 30-04-2010, the issue has been considered by different High Courts in the following cases:- (i) Commissioner v. Cummins India Ltd. - 2009 (234) E.L.T. A120 (Bom.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit Rules during the relevant period for reversal of any amount when used capital goods were removed and therefore no demand was sustainable. Thus, though there is agreement on the issue that the full credit taken at the time of receipt of the goods need not be reversed, the views of different High Courts has differed in the matter of quantum of credit to be reversed. 6. We have heard both sides and examined the legal provisions and the decisions cited above. The dispute is for the period June 2006. During the period 01-03-97 to 01-04-2000 Rules applicable for such situation was under: 57S. Manner of utilisation of the capital goods and the credit allowed in respect of duty paid thereon. (1) The capital goods in respect of which credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such from the factory, or premises of the provider of output service, the manufacturer of the final products or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs or capital goods and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in rule 9. 8. During the period when similar provision was in force CBEC had issued Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX., dated 1-7-2002 to the effect that credit amount to be reversed will be reduced by 2.5% per quarter of use of the machinery. 9. After 13-11-2007 the applicable provisions read as under: With effect from 13.11.2007, the following provision has been introduced in Rule 3 (5) ibid. Provided also that if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
