M/S. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 16 February, 2016
Therefore when the capital goods is not installed or has not been used its clearance will clearly fall under the Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) and not under Clause (c). I am therefore of the view, that the appellant is required to pay excise duty on the capital goods cleared without being used in terms of Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, equal amount of Cenvat Credit which has been availed shall be payable by the appellant. As regard, the judgements relied upon by the Ld. Counsel , I find that in case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra) the capital goods was destroyed in fire and thereafter it was cleared as waste and scrap. The Tribunal has given the observation that Rule 57S(2) (c) not made any distinction between the capital goods becoming waste and scrap by use over time and that so by fire accident during its economic life. The Tribunal has in another words held that the capital goods can become waste and scrap either by use over time or by fire accident. However, in the present case, the capital goods cleared by the appellant as waste and scrap does not fall under either of two categories, therefore the fact of this judgment is entirely different from the facts of the present case.