9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3904.10 falling under Chapter 39. They received PVC from M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (IPCL), Vadodara. The goods were delivered to the appellants after payment of proper Central Excise duty by the manufacturer. They received materials under two Central Excise Invoices being Nos. 02410, dated 23-4-2002 and 02540, dated 25-4-2002. He submits that the appellants issued Central Excise Invoices to the manufacturers for using them in the manufacture of the final products after availing of the Cenvat Credit as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. It was alleged that the Range Office did not receive the original of the duplicate copies of the invoices for transporter Nos. 02410 and 02540, dated 23-4-2002 and 25-4-2002 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the dealer. He, therefore, submits that the Superintendent of Central Excise Customs has verified that the duty has been paid on the goods sent under Invoice No. 2410, dated 23rd April, 2002 and Invoice No. 2540, dated 25th April, 2002. He, therefore, submits that the duty cannot be demanded from the dealer. He submits that when the goods were duty paid and the invoice was addressed in their name and they entered them in RG 23D Account and maintained proper accounts for the goods received by them and sold to their customers, there is no question of realisation of duty from the dealer. The dealer is not the manufacturer of the goods nor they are responsible for payment of Central Excise duty. He, therefore, submits that the question of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, when the goods were duty paid and the invoice was addressed in the name of the appellants, they entered them in RG 23D Account and maintained the proper accounts for the goods received by them and sold to their customers. The question of realisation of duty from the appellants does not arise. In the present case, the appellants cannot be charged the duty as they are not the manufacturers and producers of such goods. In terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Central Excise duty can be charged from a manufacturer. In the present case the appellants submitted duplicate copies of the invoices along with the monthly returns to the Range Superintendent. This was also mentioned by them but neither this wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
