9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he customer indicates this fact - Prima facie, the recovery of money by the appellant from the customer was as agreed between the two - the conduct of the appellant fairly shows that the appellant was proceeding on the premise that they were not maintaining separate accounts in respect of the inputs. The applicability of the provisions invoked by the department, Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 was invocable for recovery of the amount payable by the party in terms of sub-rule (3) of the Rule 6 vide Explanation III to Rule 6 - Rule 14 expressly mentions Section 11A for such recovery - the legal plea is also not prima facie tenable - Assessee is liable to pre-deposit the amount demanded in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 - the appellant has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alent to 10% of the sale price (excluding taxes) of such goods but had not credited this amount to the exchequer as required under the provisions of Rule 6(3). We also find that, in the wake of audit objection, the party paid an amount of Rs. 11,21,394/- and interest thereon (Rs. 1,74,128/-) in April 2009. It is further found that these payments were intimated to the Superintendent in a letter dated 24.4.2009 wherein they claimed that the payment of Rs. 11,21,394/- was equivalent to the CENVAT credit on inputs, which was liable to be reversed proportionately. The said letter to the Superintendent was also accompanied by a statement showing the particulars of the relevant inputs which were claimed to have been used in the manufacture of exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected without valid grounds. (b) The payment made in April 2009 was purportedly in lieu of reversal of CENVAT credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products. Such reversal of CENVAT credit should be treated as equivalent to non-availment of the credit in terms of the Honble Supreme Courts judgement in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. Therefore, no amount was liable to be paid by the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004. (c) The provisions of Section 11A are not applicable to recovery of any amount calculated at the rate of 10% of the sale price of the exempted final products in terms of Rule 6(3) ibid. The department took recourse to Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entitled to collect 10% of the sale price of the exempted goods from their customer. The purchase order placed on the appellant by the customer indicates this fact. Prima facie, the above recovery of money by the appellant from the customer was as agreed between the two. This conduct of the appellant fairly shows that the appellant was proceeding on the premise that they were not maintaining separate accounts in respect of the inputs. As to the applicability of the provisions invoked by the department, we find that Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 was invocable for recovery of the amount payable by the party in terms of sub-rule (3) of the Rule 6 vide Explanation III to Rule 6. Rule 14 expressly mentions Section 11A for such recovery. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
