2009 (6) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Respondent. [Order Per. Rakesh Kumar]. - The facts giving rise to this appeal are in brief as under:- The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots etc. falling under Chapter Heading No.7206.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They avail the credit of the inputs, capital goods and inputs services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and ut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d penalty of equal amount on the appellant. It is against this order that the present appeal had been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri Atul Gupta, Company Secretary, the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules provide that when the inputs or capital goods, on which the Cenvat credit has been taken, are removed as such fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....everse the credit of service tax credit availed in relation to inputs or capital goods. In view of this, he pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 2.2 Shri R.K. Verma, the learned Departmental Representative defending the impugned order pleaded that what the Rule 3 (5) provides is that on removal of the Cenvated inputs or capital goods as such, the credit availed inputs or capital good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een taken. Subsequently when the appellant removed those inputs as such, he reversed only the credit of excise duty paid on the inputs. The Department's contention is that on the removal of the goods as such, in addition to the credit of Central Excise Duty, the GTA service tax credit availed in respect of those inputs should also have been reversed. I find that on this very issue, the Tribunal in....