9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng an amount calculated @ 9.6% which was credit availed by them during the period 2001-2002 to 2002-2003. Revenue authorities were of the view that the appellant should have paid the duty @ 16% on the inputs on which CENVAT Credit was availed, on the ground that the said clearance would amount to clearance of manufactured goods. 4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand raised along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondents herein preferred an appeal before first appellate authority. The first appellate authority set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Revenue's ground of appeal seems to be that the inputs which were cleared during the period 22. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants were required to pay duty @ 16% Adv. on such inputs removed as such instead of reversing the amount equal to the credit availed by the appellants. I have perused the CBEC Circular No.813/10/2005-CX, dt.25.04.2005, in which it has been clarified that the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would apply for valuation of inputs on which credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory under the erstwhile Rule (1C) of Rule 57AB of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or under Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 or 2002. I have also perused the Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as under: When inputs or capital goods, on which CENVAT Credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory, or premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urers and those manufacturers had paid appropriate duty at the time of removal of these goods. The appellant had only taken credit of the duty paid by those manufacturers as those goods were supposed to be used as inputs in the production of final products. The duty liability of those inputs remain, already determined and discharged at the time of their original removal. There is no provision in Central Excise law for reassessment of goods, which had once been removed after payment of duty. In view of the above, I find that no duty as demanded is payable by the appellants. Therefore, the lower authority's impugned orders-in-original is not sustainable on merit and deserves to be set aside. & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduce the said Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as under: When inputs or 3(5) capital goods, on which Cenvat credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory, or premises of the provider of output service, the manufacturer of the final products or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs or capital goods and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in Rule 9. 7. In view of the said clarification and the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we hold that the reference has to be answered in favour of the appellants. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
