2012 (11) TMI 872

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e year 1999 and CENVAT credit taken thereon. After using it in their factory over a period of time, the appellant disposed it of at depreciated price, paying duty on such value at tariff rate. This was objected to by the department which took the view that, in terms of the aforesaid rule, the appellant was liable to reverse CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the value of the goods at the time of its procurement. This objection made its way into a show-cause notice wherein differential duty was demanded under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act with interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Act and also penalties were proposed under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. These proposals we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dhiana Vs. Khalsa Cotspin (P) Ltd. [2011 (270) E.L.T. 349 (P & H)]   (ii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Salem vs. Rogini Mills Ltd. [2011 (264) E.L.T. 367 (Mad.)]   (iii) Shree Rajasthan syntax Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur [2012 (282) E.L.T. 550 (Tri. - Del.)]   (iv) Cummins India Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III [2007 (219) E.L.T. 911 (Tri. - Mumbai)]   (An appeal filed by the department against this decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide Commissioner vs. Cummins India Ltd. [2009 (234) E.L.T. A120 (Bom.)]   (v) RPG Cables Ltd. vs. CCE, Mysore [Final Order No. 350/2011 dated 10.5.2011 vide CESTAT-BANG.   3. The learned Superintendent (AR) points out that, in respect of another similar capital go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s used in the manufacture of excisable goods and then removed from the factory, it will not be a removal as such and, therefore, the above rule will have no application. Consequently, the removal of the used capital goods should be accompanied by payment of duty on its transaction value. This is the view expressed by the Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal in the cited cases. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the subject capital goods was removed from the factory after use over a period of time. The assessee paid duty on its depreciated value at tariff rate. The show-cause notice did not object to this depreciation of value. If that be so, there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee has paid duty on the transactio....