2017 (7) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R Per : Bench The appellants had taken Modvat Credit totally amounting to Rs. 65,92,828/- during the period from May 1995 to August 1995 under "capital goods" on "Automatic Vacuum Metallization Plant complete unit Model TOPMET 2450 C along with spare parts and Slitting Machine". The appellants had also procured a Crane in May 1995 for use with the said machinery on which Modvat credit had not be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the demand of duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The appellants are thus before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellants, the Ld. Counsel Shri M.S. Nagaraja submitted that the department has invoked Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, to demand the Modvat credit availed by the appellants on the capital goods which were removed. That during the relevant period there was no pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... only the used capital goods and there was no removal on capital goods "as such". That in the appellants case capital goods were removed on 26.12.2006 which is much prior to the introduction of the proviso to Rule 3(5). That the demand equal to the Modvat confirmed is unjustified and pleaded that the same may be set aside. He submitted that the issue was considered by the Larger Bench in the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri A. Cletus, ADC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that as the appellants have removed the capital goods as such in terms of Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004, the demand raised is legal and proper and the appellants are liable to pay duty and penalty. 4. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 5. It is clear from the records and submissions made before us that appe....