2008 (11) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondents had received capital goods in their factory premises on payment of duty of Rs. 39,57,765/- and had taken credit of the same amount. These capital goods were used in the manufacture of final product. Later on, the respondents cleared the said capital goods to their own unit at Solan in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On such removal, the respondents paid the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 29,80,217/- on the depreciated value of the said capital goods by applying Rule 57S(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents alleging that in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004, the respondents were required to reverse the entire amount of Cenvat credit availed at the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ods (capital goods) being new/unused or used. The expression "as such" intended to cover both capital goods cleared without use and cleared after being put to use. Jt has dissented with the view of the Tribunal in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd and upheld the view taken in the case of Built Industrial Packaging Co. Ltd. In view of this it was pleaded that used capital goods were required to be cleared by reversing the entire credit taken at the time of receipt of the capital goods. 3. Ld. Advocate, however, submitted that the Larger Bench decision considered the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) and does not cover provisions of Rule 3(4)(c). Since the relevant rule in their case is Rule 3(4)(c) [now Rule 3(5)] of the Cenvat credit Rules, 200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te book, the same will be relevant for the purpose of determining the depreciated value. Relevant date for deciding credit eligibility is the date of receipt of the goods as has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spenta International Ltd., 2007 (216) E.L.T. 133 (Tri.-LB). In view of this, Commissioner (Appeals) order does not require any interference and is required to be upheld. 4. I have considered the submissions. I find that the respondents are not disputing the fact that the words "as such" would include used capital goods also and therefore credit is required to be reversed on clearance of such used capital goods. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of credit required to be reversed. In this case, th....