2016 (12) TMI 974

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the transaction value. Further, issue involved is whether extended period of limitation is invokable under the facts and circumstances. 2.  The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is in the manufacture of Printed plastic Laminated Films, Pouches etc. The case of revenue is that during the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant had made short payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 26,48,083/- on clearance of capital goods namely 'Printing Cylinders' cleared to their own unit at Malanpur, under the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had on being objected by the revenue debited the entire duty of Rs. 26,48,083/- in the RG-23 A Part II dated 18/12/06, but did not agree to pay interest amounting to Rs. 4,80,609/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso cleared capital assets after a period of user the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd. 2009 (234) E.L.T. A-120(Bom), the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Raghav Alloys Ltd. 2011 (268) E.L.T. 161)(P & H) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Harsh International (Kenny) private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2012 (21) E.L.T. 714, held that there is no dispute that the assessee have removed or cleared capital assets after a period of user and accordingly the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the removal of capital assets is removal as such. The ld. Counsel further urges that in view of the law a....