9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on inputs; that in the case of shortage of parts in their spare parts division which is situated outside the factory premises, the parts obtained for the manufacturing division are transferred to the spare parts division that differential demand has been confirmed against them besides imposing penalty on the ground that the duty of excise is payable on the selling price of the spare parts division. The learned Advocate further submitted that the demand of duty is for the period from 20-1-2001 to 31-5-2001; that during the relevant period the inputs were cleared to spare parts division (SPD) on reversal of CENVAT Credit in terms of provisions of Rule 57AB; that w.e.f. 1-3-2001 in view of the amendment carried out to Rule 57AB of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )] = 2001 (46) RLT 169(CEGAT-Del.) (b) Sub-Zero Ice-cream Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE. Bangalore - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 623 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. Countering the arguments Smt. Krishna A. Mishra, learned SDR, submitted that the provisions of Rule 57AB were not similar to the provisions of Rule 57F which were interpreted by the Larger Bench in the case of Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. She, further, submitted that in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Z.V. Nagarkar v. U.O.I. - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 penalty is imposable as the Appellants themselves admitted their liability to pay the differential duty of excise w.e.f. 1-3-2001. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Explanation to Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of removal for home consumption shall not be less than the amount of Credit that has been allowed in respect of inputs under Rule 57A . We agree with the learned Advocate that the said Larger Bench decision is applicable for the period before the amendment of Rule 57AB. We do not find any reason in absence of any specific mention in the notification which substituted Rule 57AB that it has retrospective effect. Accordingly the demand of duty for the period from 20-1-2001 to 28-2-2001 is not maintainable. As far as the demand for the period from 1-3-2001 to 31-5-2001 is concerned the Appellants have not challenged the same and, in fact, have discharged duty liability even before the issue of the show cause notice. We do not agree with the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
