9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Rs.5/- as twisting charges, it is found from the records that the goods in fact were manufactured on job work basis and they were charging Rs.15/- per kg. as job charges. Therefore, the entire Rs.15/- per kg. is required to be added in the value and their contention on the valuation is not acceptable. Cenvat credit – Held that:- W.e.f. 1.10.2001 the cenvat credit was admissible to them and prior to this date, they were not eligible for any credit since they themselves have withdrawn the letter under which they have requested for availing the credit - duty has rightly been demanded from the appellants in the show cause notice and accordingly the confirmation of the demand for the extended period is upheld - w.e.f. 1.10.2001, they ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration bearing No.1/2000-01 w.e.f. 17.8.2000 wherein the nylon crimped yarn falling under Chapter Heading 5402.31 was shown to be dutiable at the specific rate. They filed another classification declaration No.1/2001-02 w.e.f. 1.6.2001 whereunder the nylon crimped yarn was shown to be chargeable to duty on ad valorem basis. On 11.6.2001, the appellants informed the department that the declaration filed by them effect from 1.6.2001 may be treated as withdrawn and they would not avail cenvat credit facility from 1.6.2001. Again, the appellants vide their letter dated 1.10.2001 informed the department that from 1.10.2001 they were going to take cenvat credit and would clear the crimped yarn after paying 16% basic and 15% additional duty on ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and, therefore, there is no involvement of any short payment of excise duty on the basis of valuation of the goods. He submitted that if the benefit of cenvat credit is allowed to them, they would not have paid any short duty and as such there is no question of imposition of any penalty also. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue stated that it is a fact that nylon crimped yarn was liable to ad valorem rate of duty w.e.f. 1.3.2001 and the appellants continued to pay the duty on the specific rate basis resulting in the lesser payment of duty and the appellants filed a declaration claiming the ad valorem duty after availing the credit and thereafter withdraw the same and continued to pay duty on specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting charges, it is found from the records that the goods in fact were manufactured on job work basis and they were charging Rs.15/- per kg. as job charges. Therefore, the entire Rs.15/- per kg. is required to be added in the value and their contention on the valuation is not acceptable. 6. As regards their contention that the appellants are eligible for the cenvat credit, we find that they have filed a classification declaration on 1.6.2001 showing ad valorem duty and declaring that they would be availing the cenvat credit. This declaration was, however, withdrawn by them vide their letter dated 11.6.2001 stating that they would not be availing the cenvat credit. Again, on 1.10.2000 they informed the department that they would be payi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
