9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is not the case, as no manufacturing activity was carried out on these goods, and they were removed as such after carrying out certain tests. The manufactured goods can be removed from the factory or warehouse of the manufacturer only under claim of rebate. This being not the case the applicant is not eligible to claim rebate on the transaction value. The rebate claim has to be restricted to the amount of cenvat credit availed on these capital goods under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and upheld, Revision application is rejected being devoid of merit. - 195/454/2007-RA-CX - 517/2010-CX, - Dated:- 1-4-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri Mohammad Arshad, for the Assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the respondent would have paid an amount equal to Cenvat credit taken and rebate should have been restricted to that amount only. The revenue has partly challenged the impugned order to the extent that an amount of Rs. 2,42,427/- may be ordered to be recovered along with interest. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order held that the applicant are entitled to a rebate claim in terms of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 4. Aggrieved by this order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed the revision application on the following grounds : 4.1 The applicant not having been served with a notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in compliance with the seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there was subsidy to the applicant in allowing the rebate of duty paid, by merely harping upon the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, ignoring the requirement of law of paying duty, as per invoice value, on goods removed on sale. 4.8 If at all, which is denied, on removal only the Cenvat Credit was liable to be reversed, ignoring the invoice value, in any event since the applicant had paid duty in excess of what is payable/reversible, the applicant was entitled for the refund of Rs. 2,42,427/-, which was rightly allowed by the Asstt. Commissioner, and the Commissioner failed to consider and much less deal with this aspect in the impugned order thereby leading to miscarriage of justice. 4.9 Since the Commissioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm ARE-1s. As per Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the applicant were required to reverse the amount of cenvat credit taken on these capital goods on receipt in their factory. But the applicant has paid duty on the transaction value as if the said goods are manufactured by them which is not the case, as no manufacturing activity was carried out on these goods, and they were removed as such after carrying out certain tests. The manufactured goods can be removed from the factory or warehouse of the manufacturer only under claim of rebate. This being not the case the applicant is not eligible to claim rebate on the transaction value. The rebate claim has to be restricted to the amount of cenvat credit availed on these capital goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
