Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2013 (12) TMI 516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsideration are that the respondents are manufacturers of PVC pipes falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had taken cenvat credit on certain capital goods during 2004 and 2005 and they had removed such capital goods vide invoice dt. 26.6.2006 by paying duty on transaction value. Revenue was of the view that as per Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 when capital goods on which Cenvat credit had been taken were removed from the factory, the manufacturer of the final product shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such capital goods. A show cause notice was issued in this regard demanding difference between credit taken and duty paid on transaction value at the time of c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Cummins India Ltd. - 2009 (234) E.L.T. A120 (Bom.)] (ii) CCE Chandigarh Vs Raghav Alloys Ltd. - 2011 (268) ELT 161 (P&H); (iii) CCE Salem Vs Rogini Mills Ltd. - 2011 (264) ELT 367 (Mad.) and (iv) Harsh International (Khaini) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE - 2012 (281) ELT 714 (Del.). 4. In all the above decisions, the view taken is that when capital goods are removed after use, it cannot be considered as a case of removal of goods as such for the purpose of reversing the entire credit taken at the time of receiving the capital goods as prescribed in Rule 3 (5) of CCR 2004. 5. However, on the question whether there is any need for reversal of any part of the credit that is taken has been answered differently in the above decisions. In the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid thereon. (1) The capital goods in respect of which credit of specified duty has been allowed under rule 57Q may be - (i) used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products; or (ii) removed, after intimating the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over the factory and after obtaining dated acknowledgement of the same, from the factory for home consumption or for export, on payment of appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon or for export under bond, as if such capital goods have been manufactured in the said factory. (2) In a case, - (a) where a capital goods are removed without being used from the factory for home consumption, on payment of duty, or for export on payment of duty of exc....