9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that it was taken on the basis of invalid documents. The credit was taken on the basis of triplicate copies of invoice issued by the assessee themselves at the time of original clearance of the goods. In the final order passed by me earlier today, in Appeal No. E/283/05 (BAPL Industries Ltd v. CCE, Coimbatore) [2005 (192) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.)], I have already held such documents to be Cenvatable. The relevant part of the said final order is reproduced below : 2. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I am inclined to accept the arguments of ld. Counsel. Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 laid down that where any final product cleared by a manufacturer on payment of duty was returned by the buyer for being remad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ern the field. After referring to the above 3 copies of an invoice, instruction No. (4.2) reads as under : The above requirement is mainly for Central Excise purposes. However, the assessee may make extra copies of invoice for his other requirements. But such copies shall be prominently marked NOT FOR CENVAT PURPOSES . According to the above instruction, any copy of invoice other than extra copy could be used for Cenvat purpose. Instructions of the Board issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act have the force of law. Hence it cannot be said that during the period of dispute there was no provision of law enabling the appellant to use triplicate copy of invoice for Cenvat purpose. 3. Ld. SDR has relied on a Trade N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocesses specified under the rule. By the time the processed goods were cleared from the factory, the rate of duty became 8%. At the time of this clearance, the assessee paid duty only at Nil rate or at 4%, as the case may be. The department took the view that they ought to have paid duty on all the processed goods at the rate of 8%. This view took the shape of a demand of differential duty of Rs. 14,656/-. This demand was also incorporated in the show cause notice issued to the party. 3. After examining the records and hearing both sides on the question whether the above demand of differential duty is sustainable in law, I find that the answer to this question would rest on sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
