2007 (11) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocates, for the Appellant. Shri D.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  The demand stands confirmed in the present appeal by denying the credit availed by the appellant on capital which was after long and continuous use, were cleared as waste & scrap. The Commissioner (Appeals), while confirming the demand, has held as under : 'It is not d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise Tariff Act, 1985. It gives the product in question the status of excisable goods. As such, the appellant is liable to pay appropriate duty.' 2. As is seen from the above that the appellate authority has agreed that during the relevant period there was no provision identical to Rule 57-S requiring the assessee to either reverse the credit or pay the duty on the transaction value. He h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ract duty prior to introduction of notification No. 27/05, w.e.f. 16-5-05. To the similar effect is Tribunal's decision in case of CEAT Ltd. v. CCE, Nasik - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 380 (Tri.-Mumbai), laying down that in as much as Rule 57-S(2) was not in existence during the relevant period and new set of rule not having identical provision requiring assessee to pay the duty on capital goods, at the tim....