2008 (10) TMI 455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the espondent. [Order]. - M/s. L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros. had removed certain items of capital goods such as tools and dies on 23-7-2004. They had availed credit of duty paid on such tools and dyes when the same had been received in the factory. At the time of removal the respondents paid duty on the capital goods calculated on the depreciated value. The original authority held that in terms....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me ground as the original authority had based in raising the demand against the respondents. The respondents are not represented. The learned JDR reiterates the grounds taken in the appeal. It is submitted that the impugned order is inconsistent with the statutory provisions contained in Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004. 3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods. He has also referred to the Board's Circular dated the 1st July 2002. We want to make it clear that the above Circular is applicable only to capital goods removed as such and not to the used Cenvated capital goods. In other words, the appellant is not required to pay duty when the used machinery is sold. Hence, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief." In the instant case the ca....