Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (9) TMI 650

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... NDRAN, DR. P. BABU, JJ Represented by: Shri Paritosh Gupta, Adv. for Assessee. Shri R. Nagar, SDR for the Revenue. Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.KS/62/Daman/ 2006, dt.27.3.06. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration that the appellant hereinabove is a manufacturer of multifold yarn/twisted yarn and was discharging duty liability by availing benefit of CENVAT Credit. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No.6/2000-CE, dt.1.3.00, wherein they were to reverse the MODVAT Credit availed on duty paid. It was noticed by the lower authorities that during the period November 2003 and December 2003, the appellants paid Central Excise duty of Rs.93,484/- (Rs.Ninet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2007 (215) ELT 261 (Tri-Kolkata) As regards the demand of duty on the ground of under-valuation, it is his submission that the clearances were made post 2004. It is his submission that the transaction value which was indicated on the invoice is not doubted but the demand has been raised on the ground that these goods were declared as stock and that stock declaration was at higher value. It is his submission that transaction value is in picture; unless the transaction value is doubted, the same cannot be discarded. For this proposition, he relies upon the following decisions: i) CCE Vapi Vs Hindustan Rubbers 2011 (269) ELT 376 (Tri-Ahmd) ii) Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs CCE New Delhi 2002 (150) ELT 1020 (Tri-Del) 4. As regards 3rd demand of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978); (ii) the National Calamity Contingent duty leviable under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 as amended by Clause 161 of the Finance Bill, 2003, which clause has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, the force of law; and (iii) the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to the duty of Excise specified under clauses (i) and (ii) above, shall be utilized only towards payment of duty of Excise leviable under the said Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, or the National Calamity Contingent duty leviable under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 as amended by Clause 161 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s.Ninety Three Thousands, Four Hundred and Eighty Four only) as upheld by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect and liable to be set aside and we do so. As regards demand of duty of Rs.1,24,564/- (Rupees One lakh, Twenty Four Thousands, Five Hundred and Sixty Four only), we find that there is no dispute that the finished goods were removed from the factory premises of the appellant during the period November 2003 and December 2003. It is correct that during the relevant period, provisions of Section 3 were specifically discussing about the transaction value to be considered for discharge of Central Excise duty liability. In the orders of lower authority, we find that there is no allegation or rejection of transaction value on the findi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d needs to be reversed. We find, as correctly contended by the ld.SDR, that the appellant had not produced any evidence as regards deteriorated condition of inputs as claimed by him. In the absence of any such evidence, we are unable to appreciate the contentions of the ld.Counsel that the inputs were deteriorated. In view of this, the orders of lower authorities confirming demand of duty on the appellant for reversal of amount of CENVAT Credit taken by the appellant on the inputs removed as such, are correct and do not suffer from any infirmity. In view of this, we uphold that portion of the order which confirms the demand of reversal of CENVAT Credit on the inputs removed as such. The lower authorities may re-quantify after considering th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates