COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though notice was duly served on the respondents, there is no representation either in person or through counsel. We therefore, proceed to decide this appeal on merits.

(2.) In this appeal, the question of law that arises for consideration is as follows:

(3.) The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent was availing credit of CENVAT on Capital goods under CENVAT Credit Rules 2001-2002. Such credit was availed by the first respondent based on duty paid documents in its favour on capital goods. The first respondent availed the entire credit of duty i.e., 100% on the capital goods in a sum of Rs. 1,94,124/- instead of 50% of the said duty as has been provided under Rule 2(4)(a) of Cenvat Rules 2001. Such credit was taken on 25.07.2001. But transferred the goods by preparing a Central Excise invoice bearing No. 4475 dated 29.09.2001 in favour of its Tatapuram unit in Cochin.