TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant there is no specific recovery mechanism of credit on the inputs and capital goods cleared during the relevant period. The specific provision was introduced only w. e. f. 01. 02. 2013. This issue was specifically dealt by the Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of IspatMetallics Industries Ltd. (2005 (10) TMI 129 - CESTAT, MUMBAI). By following these Tribunal's decisions, I hold that the appellants are not liable to reverse Cenvat credit availed on the capital goods cleared to their own unit at SEZ. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. E/187/2007 and E/207/2007 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41079-41080/2015 - Dated:- 26-3-2015 - R. Periasami, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri G Natarajan, Adv For the Respondent : Shri L Paneerselvam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that supply of inputs and capital goods on which credit was already availed can be removed to SEZ without reversal of credit. However, he submits that there was no provision under the rules for recovery of cenvat credit availed on inputs and capital goods cleared as such during the period. It was only introduced in the year 2013 w. e. f. 01. 03. 2013, where explanation was inserted only prospective. Further, he submits that the entire credit was disallowed without allowing depreciation as per the Board's Circular. On the Revenue appeal, he submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty. The following are the case laws relied by the Ld. Advocate, in support of his contention:- 1. CCE Hyderabad Vs. Navodh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, I find that as rightly contended by the appellant there is no specific recovery mechanism of credit on the inputs and capital goods cleared during the relevant period. The specific provision was introduced only w. e. f. 01. 02. 2013. This issue was specifically dealt by the Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of IspatMetallics Industries Ltd. (supra). By following these Tribunal's decisions, I hold that the appellants are not liable to reverse Cenvat credit availed on the capital goods cleared to their own unit at SEZ. Once the appeal is allowed, the question of penalty does not arise. Accordingly, the assessee's appeal is allowed and the Revenue appeal is rejected. ( Operative part of the Order pronounced in theopen Court on 26. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
