TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocate and Shri Vinubhai Soni, Commercial Manager of M/s. Rolcon Ceramic Co. 2. The ld. Advocate of the Applicants at the outset made a fresh disclosure of duty liability of Rs. 1,71,833/- i.e. out of Rs. 7,64,136/-, he was admitting Rs. 6,42,842/- leaving out a balance of Rs. 1,21,294/- not being admitted for the reason that the sale of capital goods were made after there was no credit lying in balance. Therefore, the question of demand for credit on capital goods does not arise taking into consideration the fact that there was no credit passed on to the buyer. The ld. Advocate further submitted that the report of the Commissioner (Investigation) refers to Rule 57-S(2)(b), which he claimed is incorrect because Rule 57-S(2)(b) come....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mics is running the factory as an SSI unit. Therefore, the Applicant is liable to pay duty of Rs. 1,21,294/-, as per the provisions of 57U of the Rules read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act, and under Rule 57AH of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6. The Revenue further submitted that it objects to grant of immunity to the Applicant because it was a clandestine removal. 7. The Commission has gone through the case records and the submissions made by the ld. Consultant of the Applicant. 8. The Commission observed that at the first instance the Applicant disclosed Rs. 4,47,767/- as against Rs. 7,64,136/- demanded in the show cause notice, as an additional amount of duty accepted as payable and accordingly by an I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Applicant made again a fresh confession by raising the total admitted duty liability to Rs. 6,42,842/- leaving out a balance of Rs. 1,21,294/- being not admitted as against the whole demand of Rs. 7,64,136/- in the said show cause notice. 13. The Commission has gone through the case records and the submissions of the Applicant. 14. The Applicant has admitted a total duty liability of Rs. 6,42,842/-. He has not admitted the duty liability of Rs. 1,21,294/-. The show cause notice demanded duty of Rs. 7,64,136/-. The reasons for not admitting a duty of Rs. 1,21,294/- by the Applicant is that Rule 57-S(2)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not applicable in their case since this rule will come into play only when the capital go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated by allowing deduction of 2.5 per cent of credit taken for each quarter of a year of use or fraction thereof from the date of availing credit under Rule 57Q. 16. The then Modvat Rules existing at the material time contemplates two scenario relating to disposal of capital goods under sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-S. The capital goods can be removed without being used from the factory for home consumption on payment of duty or for export on payment of duty of excise. Again the said capital goods can be removed after being used in the factory for home consumption on payment of duty of excise or for export under rebate on payment of duty of excise but when such removal takes place after being used in the factory, the assessee is allowed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from sale, merger, amalgamation, transfer, etc. The pre-condition for an application under sub-rule (5) is that there has to be a Modvat credit available in the records maintained by the assessee. Where an assessee has utilised Modvat credit, the said sub-rule (5) is not applicable, though in that case, there could be sale of the input and capital goods in which the assessee had already utilised Modvat credit. 19. Sub-rule (6) of the said Rule 57-S further stipulates transfer of unutilised credit under sub-rule (5) shall be allowed only if stock of inputs as such or any process if any is also transferred along with the factory to the new site or ownership and the stock of such input is duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the ....