Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S Wimplast Ltd

Appeal No.E/336/2012; E/CO/22/2012 [Arising out of OIA No.CS/194/DMN/SDMN/11-12, dt.03.02.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman Appellant

Vs

M/s Wimplast Ltd Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative For Respondent: None.

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:27.05.2015

Order No. A/10690 / 2015, dt.27.05.2015

Per: P.K. Das

None appears on behalf of the Respondents. On perusal of the records, I find that the Respondents requested for adjournment. The Respondents filed the Cross Objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue.

2. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find that the matter may be decided at this stage. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Respondents availed the CENVAT Credit on capital goods and at the time of clearance of the capital goods after use, they paid the duty on the transaction value. He submits that on the identical issue, Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Salem Vs Rogini Mills Ltd  2011 (264) ELT 367 (Mad.) held that the assessee is liable to reverse the credit on the depreciated value of the capital goods. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Hyderabad-III Vs Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd  2013 (298) ELT 541 (Tri-LB), followed the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court.

3. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Rogini Mills Ltd (supra) and Larger Bench decision in the case of Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd (supra).

4. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by way of remand. The Cross Objection is disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

cbb 2