9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. Both the lower authorities eminently negatived this view of the department by holding that Section 11D of the Act applied only to a person who had collected duty and not paid to the credit of the Central Government. Indisputably, the respondent paid duty on their finished goods and hence there is no question of a second payment of the same duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered as manufacture. The product that emerged from that process was cleared on payment of duty. This duty payment was partly by debit in PLA and partly by debit in CENVAT account. According to the department, the above process did not amount to manufacture and hence the respondent ought not to have paid duty on the product. On this basis, CENVAT credit taken on the inputs was sought to be deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. CCE, Ranchi - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 520 (Tri.-Kolkata) c) Super Forgings and Steels Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 559 (Tri.-Chennai) d) Shivali Udyog (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 94 (Tri.-Del.) As already noted, the respondent had paid duty on their finished products. Naturally, they collected this duty from their customers. The department is asking the party to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
