9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The Commissioner has, in adjudication of a show cause notice dated 28-11-05 covering the period July 2001 to June 2005, demanded duty of over Rs. 1.2 crores from the appellants and has imposed on them a penalty of equal amount. After examining the records and hearing both sides we note that certain quantities of finished goods cleared by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er considering the submissions of ld. Consultant for the appellants and ld. SDR for the Revenue, we have noticed the contentious nature of the issue arising before us. Rule 16 governs the manner in which finished goods cleared by an assessee and rejected and returned by the buyer should be dealt with. Sub-rule (1) says that such goods can be brought back to the factory of production for being re-m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants paid duty on the goods in question in terms of the second part of the above sub-rule, treating the goods in the category of any other case mentioned in the sub-rule. The Revenue would demand an amount equal to the Cenvat Credit taken under sub-rule (1). The present demand, which is under challenge, is the differential between the two. Both sides have sought to interpret the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned to reject certain arguments putforth by ld. SDR. It is his submission that, where the appellants say that they did not undertake any activity on the finished goods returned by the buyers, they should accept the fact that they were clearing the finished goods as such after having received the same from the buyers. They did this after having taken Cenvat credit under sub-rule (1) of Rule 16. Sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner for invoking the larger period of limitation is that the appellants had intentionally opted to discharge the lesser duty at the time of resale of the rejected goods by wrongly interpreting sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 and not opted to avail the provisions of Section 16(3). We must contextually state that sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 was not invoked in the show-cause notice. In the totality of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
