2011 (1) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eard both sides.   2. Ms. Indira Sisupal, learned JDR appearing for the Department states that the respondents removed capital goods on which they had availed CENVAT credit to their sister unit. According to the rules in force at the material time, they were required to pay duty on the value of the capital goods. The respondents, according to her, have calculated depreciated value applying....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isions the respondents have short-paid a duty amount of Rs.6,89,987/- which was rightly demanded by the original authority but has been set aside wrongly by the lower appellate authority.   3. Heard Shri M. Kannan, learned Advocate for the respondents who supports the impugned Order-in-Appeal on the ground of revenue neutrality. He states that had the respondents paid more duty as demanded....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent case the dispute relates to duty required to be paid on the depreciated capital goods cleared to the sister concern of the respondents. I find that the Board has issued a circular clarifying how the depreciation is to be worked out for computing the value of used capital goods in this case and the circular is being uniformly followed by all assessees subject to excise control. There is no part....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. However, I observe that the calculation of the depreciation adopted in the Annexure to the show-cause notice does not apply a straight line method which has resulted in higher demand against the respondents. That the depreciation for customs and excise purposes has to be calculated as per straight line method applying a lower prescribed percentage fixed for subsequent years as evident from a....