TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till the date of removal of capital goods - appeal is allowed by way of remand only for quantification purpose. - E/1004 to 1006/07 - A/90188-90190/17/EB - Dated:- 18-10-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Vipin Jain, Advocate for Appellant Shri S.V. Nair, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. Shri Vipin Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that during the relevant period there was no provision for payment of duty on the removal of capital goods if it is removed after use of the capital goods. The provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is applicable only in such cases where the capital goods are removed as such i.e. without putting to use. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H) (iii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Salem Vs. Rogini Mills Ltd. - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 367 (Mad.) He submits that after considering all the judgments on the issue the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-III Vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. - 2013 (298) E.L.T. 541 (Tri.- LB) held that the assessee is required to pay the cenvat credit after deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing the ratio the Larger Bench held that appellant is required to pay duty on the depreciated value that is by deducting 2.5% per quarter for the period from taking credit till the date of removal of capital goods. As per our above discussion, the adjudicating authority must recalculate the demand in terms of the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
