9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Rules on the duty paid returned goods. Two show cause notices were issued proposing to deny the credit on the ground that credit availed by them would not represent the amount of duty actually paid by them and there was no mention of the invoice number under which the goods were earlier cleared. The Original Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,38,548/- and Rs. 1,42,585/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication orders. Held that- In the present case, the appellant stated that the goods are not rectifiable. It is also seen that they have not produced the records as required under the Rule. Hence, the demand of duty and penalty are justifiable. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty paid returned goods and availed credit under Rule 16(1) of the Rules on the basis of supplier's invoice accompanied with the appellant's original invoice. He also submits that the goods were rectified and thereafter cleared on payment of duty with the intimation to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise and produced the copy of letter dated 12-8-2009. He also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously observed that the appellant failed to produce any evidence in respect of receipt of the duty paid goods. He also submits that annexure to show cause notice is showing the details of the name of the parties from whom the goods were received. He further submits that opportunity may be given to produce the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been cleared by the Noticee. If so, what processes were carried out and whether these processes are covered under the definition "Manufacture" as stipulated in Rule 16(2) above. The Range Officer vide his letter dated 31-8-2006 has reported that out of total quantity, only 266 pairs of shoes involving CE duty of Rs. 33874/- could be cleared by the party on payment of duty even after the expiry of two years. For the remaining quantity the party vide their letter dated 21-8-2006 and 24-8-2006 have reported that these are not rectifiable." 5. The ld. Advocate placed the letter dated 12-8-2009 of the appellant addressed to the jurisdictional Superintendent that the said goods were cleared on payment of duty. I find that the appellant alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
