9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 to 28-2-2005 on 9-11-2005. The appellants were regularly filing monthly return showing clearance of goods on payment of duty as well as without payment of duty. On examining the returns the Revenue vide letter dated 26-6-2003 directed the appellants to pay 8% of the value of exempted goods. As the Revenue was aware on 26-6-2003 that the appellants were taking credit in respect of common inputs and clearing products without payment of duty as well on payment of duty, therefore, charge of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable, hence, the demands beyond the normal period of limitation are time-barred, hence liable to be set aside. Demand of remaining period - HELD THAT:- This situation is covere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Contention of the appellants is that they are engaged in the manufacture of Refined Vegetable Oil through solvent extraction method. During the manufacture of final product De-oiled cake, gum and Hexon came into existence and they cleared without payment of duty. Contention is that demand is for the period 30th April, 2003 to 28 February, 2005. They received two show cause notices, show cause notice dated 21-9-2005 for demand for the period 30-4-2003 to 30-11-2004 alleging suppression, and second show cause notice dated 9-12-2005 was for the period 1-12-2004 to 28-2-2005. Contention is that, as the appellants were filing the necessary monthly return showing clearance of goods on payment of duty as well as exempted goods, therefore, the alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants that they are ready to reverse the credit, Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paper v. C.C.E, Ludhiana, reported in 2006 (200) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.) to submit that reversal of credit after clearance of goods will not help the case of the appellants. 5. We find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable and exempted goods and were taking credit in respect of common inputs. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellants for demand of duty on the ground that as per provisions of Central Excise Rules in respect of exempted goods manufactured out of common inputs, manufacturer has to pay 8% or 10% of the value of the exempted goods. 6. Demand is for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notification was that exemption is available only in case when credit has not been taken in respect of duty paid on inputs the benefit of notification is not available. In the present case facts are different. In the present case the appellants submitted that they want to reverse whole of the credit availed on common inputs used in the manufacture of excisable as well as exempted goods. This situation is covered by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Maize Products (supra). The Tribunal after considering the earlier decision of the Tribunal has held as under :- We have carefully considered the submissions. We are convinced that the demand is highly dis-apportionate to the credit availed on the common inputs which could be attributed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
