2021 (6) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....extiles Pvt. Ltd., Unit-II durng the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 and they had taken MODVAT credit on these machineries. After considerable usage, the appellants sold some of these capital goods to various parties under invoices during the year September 2006 to September 2007. They did not reverse the CENVAT Credit on these capital goods. 2. The appellants were issued Show Cause Notice No. 02/2008 dated 29.01.2008 alleging that they are liable to pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of the said capital goods in terms of Rule 3 (5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After due process of law, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 05/2008 (CE) dated 30.06.2008 confirmed the demand of the entire credit of Rs. 36,62,530....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order impugned herein again remanded the matter back for re-computation holding that depreciation at 2.5% every quarter is wrong and that there should be a maximum cap of 70% of the depreciation value. As for the extended period, the demand for the period from September 2006 to December 2006 was set aside. Aggrieved by such Order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 4.1 On behalf of the appellant, Learned Counsel Ms. D. Naveena appeared and argued the matter. She submitted that the dispute before the Commissioner (Appeals) was in respect of the method of depreciation that has to be adopted and on the other hand, the impug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....calculating the depreciation of capital goods for reversing the credit, the straight line method has to be adopted. That though the period involved in the present case is prior to 27.02.2010, the Tribunal in several decisions has held that the straight line method has to be adopted for the period prior to 27.02.2010 also. She relied upon the decision in the cases of M/s. Siddharth Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C.Ex. & Service Tax, Jaipur-I reported in 2015 (315) E.L.T. 419 (Tri. - Del.) and M/s. Navin Fluorince International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore reported in 2017-TIOL-4071-CESTAT-DEL. 4.4 She prayed that the demand may be determined by calculating the depreciation after adopting the straight line....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....%. 9. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Siddharth Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. (supra), on the very same issue of the method that has to be adopted for calculation of depreciation prior to 27.02.2010, has held that the straight line method has to be adopted. The relevant paragraph is noticed as under: "The only dispute in the present appeal is whether prior to 27-2-2010 the reversion of Cenvat credit availed on capital goods shall be on the written down value method or straight line method. Both sides agree that after 27-2-2010 the method prescribed was straight line. Appellant followed straight line method. But prior to that there was no express provision of law. The demand in question is Rs. 3,13,336/-. It does not appeal to common sense as to t....