M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
It is an admitted fact that of the case that there was no physical removal of the capital goods from the factory of the respondent. The central point for consideration is whether the amount is required to be paid under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is to be paid by taking such capital goods as removed from the factory. Revenue relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in which a view was taken, in the light of the erstwhile Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, that such an amount would be payable even in the absence of any physical removal of capital goods. The Honble High Court held that the transaction of sale of the entire power plant to different entity is nothing short of physical removal.
However, the respondent has relied upon several case laws in which contra view has been taken. Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. UOI – 1987 (32) ELT 234 (SC) – 1987-VIL -04-SC-CE wherein the meaning of the word removal has been examined. The Apex Court held as follows: There can be no doubt that the word removal contemplates shifting of a thing from one place to another. In other words, it contemplates physical movement of goods from one place to another. In the Tribunal decision in the case of L.G. Balakrishnan and Bros. Limited (supra), the Tribunal has examined a similar question as is before us and considered the meaning of the word removal as explained by the Honble Supreme Court and held as under:
