M/S. Savita Polymers Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/965/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellant's liability to reverse the entire CENVAT credit on capital goods, where duty had been paid on the depreciated value, falls to be decided by the rule laid down by the Larger Bench in CCE, Hyderabad-III v. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Limited, which this Tribunal applies as governing the same period and the same question.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-SRP-58-VAPI-2012-13 dated 05.10.2012, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Vapi)
M/s. Savita Polymers Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Jagdish Surti, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri Lalatendu Patra
For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble 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?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 17.06.2015
ORDER No. A/10816 / 2015 Dated 17.06.2015
Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
When this case was called out for hearing, Shri Jagdish Surti (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that in these proceeding the duty is demanded from the appellant on the ground that entire CENVAT credit is required to be reversed whereas, they have paid the duty on the depreciated value of the capital goods after use for number of years. That the period involved in this case is September 2006 to November 2006. That relevant amendment in Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding reversal of CENVAT credit/ payment of duty was carried out with effect from 13.11.2007. That their case is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-III vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Limited [2013 (298) ELT 541 (Tri. LB)].
2. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Both sides agree that the period involved is same and is covered by the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-III vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Limited (supra). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 05.10.2012, passed by the first appellate authority. (Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free