9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. RKA/649/SRT-I/2009, dt. 01-09-2009, for dropping the demand against the respondent. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of man-made fabrics and holding Central Excise registration as an independent processor. They were availing the deemed credit for the same under Rule 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 6/2002 was in force upto 31-3-03. As the clearance took place after 31-3-03, a show cause notice was issued for wrong availment of deemed credit of Rs. 4,31,834/-. The same was disallowed by the adjudicating authority on account of short payment, interest was also demanded and penalties were also imposed under Section 11AC. On an appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is available to the assessee only at the time of clearance of the final product. The goods were cleared when this notification was not in operation. In that event, the respondent is not entitled for the deemed credit as availed by them and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that they have earned the deemed credit on 31-3-03 is totally incorrect and prayed that as there is no provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that as per the Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 1-3-02, the relevant provisions of said notification are reproduced below: "...... and credit of declared duty so deemed to have been paid shall be allowed to the manufacturer of the final products, without production of documents evidencing payment of duty on the declared inputs, at the time of clearance of the said final products. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril 2003, and was properly reported to the department in their ER-1 returns and the show cause notice was issued in 2008, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the said contention of the respondent as he allowed the appeal on merit. Hence, it would be appropriate to remand back the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass order on limitation after considering the submissions of both s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
