TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Prasad, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order] per: Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - We have heard both sides on the issue referred to the Larger Bench, which relates to interpretation of the expression "as such" appearing in Rule 4(5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which reads as under:- "The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 217, the Tribunal has brought out how, in Rule 57S(2) as it earlier stood, the expressions "without being used" and "after being used" were mentioned, and subsequently these two clauses were merged into one by using the expression "as such" which clearly shows that the expression is intended to cover both capital goods cleared without use and cleared after being put to use. Ever since the inception of the Modvat/Cenvat Scheme, capital goods, whether used or unused, were allowed to be removed from a factory only on payment of duty or on reversal of Cenvat credit taken. Initially, used capital goods could be removed after reversing proportionate credit depending upon the period of use, as per Notification 23/94-C.E. dated 20-5-1994. This syst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 328, the assessees who are manufacturers of BOPP film, had imported filter stacks and availed Modvat credit of countervailing duty and later exported the filter stacks to original seller for repairs after debiting credit originally availed by them at the time of import. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim which was proposed to be rejected on the ground that credit had been rightly reversed in terms of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The defence of the assessees was that they were not required to reverse the credit, in view of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); the assessees filed appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
