EICHER TRACTORS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals involve a common issue. Therefore, they were taken up together for consideration and are disposed of under this common order.

(2.) THE appellant received various inputs for the manufacture of final product. They take duty credit (CENVAT Scheme) in respect of such inputs. At times, the inputs are removed as such i.e. without subjecting them to any manufacturing process. Issue arose as to what is the appellant's liability in such cases. The appellant contended that they were not required to make any fresh assessment of the inputs so cleared. They were only required to reverse the credit taken in respect of such inputs. Under the impugned orders it was held that the inputs cleared as such should be subjected to the process of assessment and appropriate duty paid. Consequently, differential duty demand has also been raised.

(3.) THE appellants contend in these appeals that the impugned orders are contrary to the settled law. Learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Limited 2000 (129) ELT 228 (Tribunal -LB) : 2002 (92) ECR 484 (T) and CCE, Coimbatore v. American Auto Service and pointed out that dealing with the same issue of removal of inputs, the Tribunal held that what was required was only restoration of the original position be levying the same rate of duty at which he has taken the credit. The larger Bench held as under: