Meaning of "removal" under Modvat reversal rules stayed unresolved as the capital goods transfer issue was referred to a Larger Bench.

The dispute concerned whether sale of a captive power plant together with stored capital goods, on which Modvat credit had been taken but which had never been put to use, constituted "removal" of capital goods requiring reversal of credit under Rule 57AB(1C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. One view treated transfer of the plant and associated capital goods as removal from the factory even without physical lifting, while the competing view required actual physical removal rather than mere transfer of ownership or possession. The Tribunal did not decide the issue on merits and referred the matter to a Larger Bench, leaving valuation and penalty questions open.

---

---

Issues: Whether sale of captive power plant together with stored capital goods, on which Modvat credit had been taken but which were never put to use, amounted to removal of capital goods so as to require reversal of credit under Rule 57AB(1C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the meaning of "removed" in Rule 57AB(1C). The Tribunal noted the Revenue's case that the sale of the captive power plant and the associated capital goods resulted in their from the factory, even if there was no physical lifting of the goods. It also noted the competing view that removal must mean actual physical removal and not mere transfer of ownership or possession. Reliance was placed on the interplay of Rule 57AB(1C) and Rule 57AB(1D), together with Rules 9(1) and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to support the view that the expression "removed" could extend beyond physical shifting where the goods ceased to remain in the assessee's factory and were transferred along with the unit.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not finally decide the controversy on merits and referred the matter to a Larger Bench for resolution. The related questions of valuation and penalty were left open.

Final Conclusion: The main tax issue remained unresolved at this stage, and the matter was placed before a Larger Bench for authoritative determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where competing tribunal views exist on the meaning of "removal" for Modvat reversal, the matter may be referred to a Larger Bench when the issue turns on the legal character of transfer of capital goods from the factory rather than on a settled rule of physical removal.

---