2009 (9) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... them was set aside. The respondent manufacture colour picture tubes. During the period from Sept'01 to April, 02, 460 colour picture tubes, which earlier had been cleared on payment of duty, were returned by the customers as defective. These defective colour picture tubes were received by the respondent for repair and intimation under D-3 form was submitted to the Deptt. and the same were cleared by the respondent without payment of duty, after repairs. Subsequently, whenever the respondent received defective picture tubes for repairs, as per the provisions of Rule 16(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, they opted to take Cenvat credit and clear the same on payment of duty. In respect of 460 colour picture tubes, no Cenvat credit had been ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... provisions of Rule 16, a manufacturer in respect of receipt of defective goods for repairs has an option either to take Cenvat credit and thereafter at the time of removal of the goods, pay the duty equal to the Cenvat credit taken, or neither take Cenvat credit on returned goods nor pay any duty at the time of clearance after repairs, that in this case during period Sept.'01 to April'02, the respondent did not take Cenvat credit and for this reason at the time of removal, no duty was paid and that the duty demand, in any case, is time barred as the goods had been received and cleared during Sept. 01 to April'02 and at the time of each receipt, the necessary intimation to the Deptt. had been given in D3 form while the SCN has been issued o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of receipt of goods, no Cenvat credit has been taken, therefore, no duty was payable. Moreover, I find that each receipt of the goods during Sept.' 01 to April' 02 had been intimated to the Deptt. and hence Deptt. cannot be unaware to the fact for receipt of the goods for repairs. In view of this, the respondent cannot be accused of having suppressed any information with intent to evade the payment of duty and, hence, in any case, only the normal limitation period under Section 11A(1) was available to the Deptt. and as such the demand SCN dated 23-9-06 is time barred. 4. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated in the open Court)
Case laws, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X