TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of removal of goods “as such” for the purpose of reversing the entire credit taken at the time of receiving the capital goods as prescribed in Rule 3 (5) of CCR 2004 - it is prudent to remand the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issues afresh taking into consideration the principle of law laid down by the Larger Bench - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/80/2010-SM - A/13442/2017 - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant : Mr. J. Nagori (A.R.) For Respondent : Mr. Anand Mishra (Advocate) ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No.AKP/63/DIVNNDMN/DAMAN/2009-10 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the 16 Injection Moulding Machines is required to be reversed at the time of clearance of the said goods. It is his contention that in view of the Larger Bench Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-III Vs Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. - 2013 (298) ELT 541 (Tri. L.B.) the position of law has been made more clear while resolving the conflicting views on the subject; the Revenue thus submits that the issuebe decided in the light of the said principle.He submits that on similar facts and circumstances, the Larger Bench after taking note of thegrowth of the relevant provisionsobserved that the principle of law laid down by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Salem Vs Rogini Mills Ltd. - 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 2005-2006 and later these capital goods were removed after being used for more than one and half yearin the year June 2006-2007. At the time of clearance of the capital goods, the respondent had paid duty on the transaction value to which the Revenue did not accept and demanded the reversal of the total credit availed initially at the time of the receipt of the capital goods in their factory premises, considering the clearances of the capital goods as such. Due to conflicting views on the subject matter by the High Court and Tribunal, the issue wasreferred to Larger Bench in Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd.'s case more or less involving similar circumstances. In the said case, the respondents were manufacturer of PVC pipes and ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year from the date of taking of Cenvat credit. However, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Harsh International(Khaini) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that there was no provision in the Cenvat Credit 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 1-3-1997 to 1-4-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under : With effect from 10-9-2004, when new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were introduced, the relevant rule, i.e. Rule 3(5), read as below : When inputs or capital goods, on which Cenvat credit has been taken, are removed 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 C.B.E. C. had issued Circular No.643/34/2002-CX., dated 1-7-2002 to the effect that credit amount to be reversed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
