TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered view that the discharge of duty liability by the appellant as the value after availing benefit of depreciation seems to be correct for more than one reason. The machinery being manufactured in the year 1996 was disputed by the first appellate authority in his impugned order while we find from the adjudication order that the adjudicating authority has recorded that it is claimed by the assessee that the machinery was manufactured in 1996, but the said claim of the assessee is not controverted in anyway in the adjudication order. The first appellate authority was hearing the appeal filed by the assessee could not have come to a conclusion that the said machineries were indeed not manufactured in 1996, without any evidence. Secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant cleared these machineries to their job-workers for manufacturing of articles for their use. The Revenue authorities were of the view that the appellant has to discharge the duty liability on the machinery cleared. Acceding to the directions of the Revenues authorities, the appellant calculated the assessable value of the machineries by availing the benefit of depreciation as per the Central Board of Excise Customs letter F. No. 495/16/93-Cus-VI dated 26.5.93 and discharged the duty liability. Revenue authorities are of the view that since the machineries were cleared to the job-workers, the appellant could not claim the depreciation to discharge the duty liability and issued a show-cause notice which was confirmed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority has recorded that it is claimed by the assessee that the machinery was manufactured in 1996, but the said claim of the assessee is not controverted in anyway in the adjudication order. The first appellate authority was hearing the appeal filed by the assessee could not have come to a conclusion that the said machineries were indeed not manufactured in 1996, without any evidence. 4.2. Secondly, we find that C.B.E.C. in Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX. dated 1.7.2002 at point No. 14 while accepting the discharge of duty liability in respect of capital goods on which Cenvat credit has been taken and put to use cleared for subsequently, categorically stated that in respect of capital goods adequate depreciation may be given as per the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
