Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Denso Haryana Private Limited ... vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 3 March, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 3.2.2012
Excise Appeal No. 499 of 2009-SM
{Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 273/ANS/GGN/2008 dated 5.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III}
Coram:
Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? Yes
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No
3. Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? No
M/s Denso Haryana Private Limited (DHNA) Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-III Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : Shri Nikhil Agarwal, Advocate
Appeared for Respondent : Shri Bharat Bhushan, A.R.
CORAM: Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
Order No.dated.
Per Mathew John:
In this case the dispute involved is about clearance of capital goods on which Cenvat credit was taken after using the same for about seven years. The goods were cleared during Sept. 2006. The appellants had reversed Cenvat credit on transaction value of the capital goods at which it was sold after use. Revenues contention is that they should have reversed the entire credit taken when the capital goods were initially received in the factory.
2. There was no clear provision dealing with the situation in Cenvat Credit Rules of the relevant period. Revenue is relying on Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules where it is stated that when inputs or capital goods are removed as such the credit taken initially should be reversed. The contention of the appellant is that when capital goods are removed after use it is not clearance of the goods as such. This issue has been subject matter of dispute in a few cases and recently Punjab & Haryana High Court has decided in the case of CCE Vs. Raghav Alloys Ltd. 2011 (268) ELT 161 (P&H) that the said rule cannot be interpreted to cover clearance of capital goods after its use and reversal of Cenvat credit based on transaction value of the capital good is good enough. Since the matter is already decided by the High Court, I respectfully follow the order of the High Court and allow the appeal.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Mathew John) Member (Technical) RM