Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether capital goods cleared after substantial use can be treated as removed "as such" for the purpose of reversing the entire Cenvat credit originally taken, or whether reversal is confined to the duty relatable to the depreciated value of the used capital goods.
Analysis: Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 applied to removal of inputs or capital goods "as such". The capital goods here had been used for about nine years before clearance, so they retained their identity as capital goods and were not in the same position as unused goods. The legal distinction was drawn between unused capital goods, fully scrapped capital goods, and used capital goods removed in between these stages. For used capital goods, the proper approach was to require payment corresponding to the depreciated value, consistent with the Board circular and the later proviso in Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Requiring full reversal in every case of clearance after use would produce anomalous results and defeat the scheme of credit on capital goods.
Conclusion: Used capital goods cleared after long use are not treated as removed "as such" for full credit reversal, and the Revenue's demand for reversal of the entire credit was not sustainable.