9911796707
TMI Blogsale of used Capital goods -regX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of used Capital goods -reg X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the said capital goods reduced by 2.5% depreciation per quarter calculated by straight line method as per sub rule (5A) of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 or Excise duty to be paid on transaction value at the time of removal of capital goods. Whether, we have to obtain any certificate from chartered Accountant before sale of Capital goods from the factory? Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: No need of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A.' s Certificate. Old and used capital goods being more than 11-12 years old, depreciation method will not work. So you are advised to pay duty on transaction value and mentioned the word,'Scrap---name of capital goods.' Reply By surya narayana: The Reply: Dear Friend, Since the duty become ZERO in terms of the rule specifying 2.5%, you need not pay duty equivalent to the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f credit taken and that too you are clearing the equipment under the same name. Pl. try to indicate the Date of receipt and date of credit availed on the equipment on the relevant clearance documents. However, if clear the said equipment as scrap of Oxygen Injection unit, then you have to pay the duty on Transaction value. Best Regards Suryanarayana Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani: The Reply: Sir t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he querist has mentioned that the said capital asset was not used. Whether in such situation also the reversal provision shall be applicable. Here the querist is requested to clarify whether the cenvat credit was availed and utilised when the same was received a decade ago. Thanks. Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: Dear Sir, Though the querist has not mentioned the word, 'Utilised' i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appears that credit has been taken and utilised. So Sh.Surya Narayana's reply is perfect and resolves the problem of querist. Reply By vinay wakde: The Reply: Thanks for your clarification in the matter. With Regards, VINAY Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE Versus LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD. - 2015 (3) TMI 694 - MADRAS HIGH COURT Reply By Ganeshan Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lyani:
The Reply:
Sir, I am not paid member of TMI, so cannot access the link of the cited case law. Thanks. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
