9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, which in fact was an amount of 8% required to be paid/reversed from the CENVAT Credit on inputs already taken since the assessee had not maintained separate accounts for inputs of exempted/non-exempted goods? (b) Whether the CESTAT was correct in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee without considering the Board's Circular No. 599/36/2001 CX., dated 12-1-2001? (c) Whether the CESTAT was correct in passing order in favour of the assessee despite their failure to maintain separate accounts under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2002 and without paying 8% amount in terms of Section 11D? 1. Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant. Various extracts from the Order-in-Original made by the Adjudicating Authority were read out emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, such person has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed/determined and paid on any excisable goods under the Act from the buyer of such goods; and thirdly, the amount so collected should be representing the duty of excise. Then such person is duty bound to forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. 3. In the facts of the present case the stand of the Revenue has been stated by the Tribunal as: "The stand of the Revenue is that the amount has been collected as excise duty whereas no duty has been paid but only 'amount' as required under Cenvat Rules……….." 4. The Tribunal has not accepted this stand. In light of this finding it is not possible to accept the contention on behalf of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposed Question No. 1 is concerned, the earlier part of question is suggestive in relation to a finding of fact and hence, cannot be termed to be a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 7. Similarly, proposed Question No. 2 merely raises an issue as to whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing appeal filed by the assessee without considering the circular referred to in the question. There is nothing on record to suggest that the representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal pressed the circular in service before Tribunal and yet the Tribunal did not consider the same. Merely because the Adjudicating Authority has referred to the circular in its order does not necessarily mean that the super ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
