9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 45,14,933.00 along with interest and penalty on the ground that during the period from 01.09.2000 to 31.03.2001, the appellant cleared their inputs namely Metribuzin Tech.(Sancor Tech.) to M/s Bayer India Ltd on payment of Central Excise duty equivalent to CENVAT Credit availed by them. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 38,92,184.00 alongwith interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. Ld.Advocate on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appellant cleared the inputs as such and reversed the credit availed on the inputs. He submits that this issue is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Tractors (supra) while dealing with the Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules on the issue in respect of valuation of inputs on which CENVAT Credit has been availed and removed as such held in favour of the assessee. Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 provides that when inputs or capital goods on which CENVAT Credit has been taken are removed as such from the factory, the manufacturer of the final product shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs. 5. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd (supra), after considering the explanation of Rule 57AB (b) of the said CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, held that the reversal of the credit availed at the time of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... American Auto Services reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal) and the Tribunal held that in such a situation reversal of credit is sufficient when inputs are cleared as such. This view was again affirmed by the Larger Bench in the case of CCE v. ABB (supra). The appeal by the Revenue against this decision was dismissed as not pressed. The same is reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. A149 (S.C.). 11. We find that as the Provisions of Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules were interpreted by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. American Auto Services [1996 (81) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal)] and CCE v. ABB (supra) and the Tribunal held that reversal of credit is sufficient when the inputs are cleared as such. We find the rule which is und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
