TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation service. The appellant procured optical cables which were to be laid down and later on, some of the optical fibre cable was not used by the appellant therefore, the same was transferred to their sister unit. The Revenue is of the view that, as the said capital goods has been transferred to their sister unit therefore, in terms of rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the appellant is required to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on said capital goods. Therefore, for the period 2008-09, a show cause notice dated 29.09.2014 was issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation. The matter was adjudicated and it was held that appellant is required to reverse Cenvat credit. Consequently, duty was demanded along with inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the ld. Counsel and submits that the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Belgaum Vs. Associated Cement Co. Limited - 2009 (236) ELT 240 (Kar.) wherein the goods transferred to another unit, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that in terms of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee is required to reverse the Cenvat credit. He further submitted that the same view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Paper Mills Vs. CCE & ST., Bhubneshwar - 2014 (309) ELT 359 (Tri. Kolkata). Therefore, the impugned order has to be upheld. 6. In rebuttal to the arguments advanced by the ld. AR, ld. Counsel submits that as there were divergent views of different High Courts, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and also does not follow from the definition of place of 'removal'. Under the definition place of removal may be a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods etc. The Explanations to Rules 9 and 49 do not contain any definition of place of removal , but provide that excisable goods produced or manufactured in any place or premises at an intermediate stage and consumed or utilised for the manufacture of another commodity in a continuous process, shall be deemed to have been removed from such place or premises immediately before such consumption or utilisation. Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 4 has defined place of removal , but it has not 'defined removal'. There can be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration is whether the amount is required to be paid under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is to be paid by taking such capital goods as removed from the factory. Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in which a view was taken, in the light of the erstwhile Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, that such an amount would be payable even in the absence of any physical removal of capital goods. The Hon'ble High Court held that the transaction of sale of the entire power plant to different entity is nothing short of physical removal. However, the respondent has relied upon several case laws in which contra view has been taken. Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K. Cott....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntain the details of any removal, mode of transport, rate of duty, duty payable thereon etc., as per the requirement of Rule 11 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. We also note that based on these invoices no credit can be availed by any buyer as these are not in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In view of settled legal position regarding need for physical removal of capital goods or inputs, in order to attract the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we find that there is no justification to invoke such provision to demand and recover any amount from the appellant in this case. As such, we find no justification for the confirmation of demand towards capital goods. The same reasoning is applicable to the recove....