Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Pune Iii vs Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd on 16 December, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. E/984/09 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/VM/103/09 dated 17.07.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
CCE Pune III
:
Appellant
Versus
Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance Shri V.K. Singh, SDR for Appellants None for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 16.12.10 Date of Decision : 16.12.10 ORDER NO.
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the lower appellate authority following the Honble Bombay High Courts decision in the case of Cummins India Ltd. vs. CCE Pune III 2009 (234) ELT A120, has held that in case of removal of capital goods, the CENVAT credit is reversable at the transaction value.
2. The learned DR submitted that in the case of CCE Goa vs. Betts India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (240) ELT 119 (Tri. Mum) this Tribunal after considering the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Cummins India Ltd. (supra), has given its finding that in case of capital goods removed as such the assessee is required to reverse the whole credit taken over by them on such capital goods.
3. None appeared for the respondents but the respondent has sought an adjournment. Considering the fact that the issue involved is in a narrow compass and presence of the respondent is not required, the application for adjournment is rejected.
4. Heard learned SDR for the Revenue.
5. I find that in the case of Greenply Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur 2010 (259) ELT 103 (Tri. Del.) the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has also held that in case of removal of capital goods as such the assessee is required to reverse the CENVAT credit on transaction value. Hence I find the issue has been attained finality and no more res integra. Accordingly, following the decisions of Cummins India Ltd. and Greenply Industries Ltd. the respondent is required to reverse the CENVAT credit on transaction value of the capital goods at the time of removal.
6. The impugned order is modified to this extent that they are required to reverse the CENVAT credit on transaction value of the capital goods at the time of removal. In that case no fine and penalty imposed on them. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3