2010 (4) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rajendran, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri S. Krishnamurthy, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2008(H-III)(D)C.E., dated 14-2-2008. 2.Heard both sides and perused records. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents are manufacturers of PVC pipes falling under Ch 39 of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spect; pertaining to removal of capital goods. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority held that the duty discharged by the respondents on the transaction value is correct and dropped further proceedings. Aggrieved by such an order of the adjudicating authority, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) also upheld the view of the adjudicating authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(249) E.L.T. 99 (Tri. - Del.)]. 6. On perusal of the decision of the Bench in the case of Geeta Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), I find that the Bench has recorded the following order :- "8................. (1).................. (2) During the period from 1-3-2003 to 12-11-2007 in case of removal of Cenvated capital goods after being used, only proportionate Cenvat credit depen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e capital goods cleared as such or after use which would render the Larger Bench decision nullify. It is noted that there are no specific provisions for re-working out the value, after granting depreciation, for reversal of proportionate credit. The; decision in the case of Geeta Industries Pvt. Ltd. is handed down by a Division Bench, judicial discipline requires that I follow the same. As I find....