9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also does not prescribe any register to be maintained by the manufacturers of the finished goods for availing any credit. However, there is definitely an indication that duty equivalent to the duty paid on inputs (Naphthalene) is required to be set-off while arriving at the duty payable on the finished goods. As there is one-to-one correlation with respect to inputs used, duty paid on such inputs and the extent of exemption, therefore, this has to be considered only an exemption notification in which the extent of exemption is determined by the duty paid on the inputs. The extent of set-off available shows that there is no payment of duty and the same is not required to be paid on the finished products manufactured by the appellant. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32/86-CE dated 06.08.1986 from the customers in the invoices. Another demand of ₹ 30,88,632/- has also been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that set-off recovered from the customers is an additional consideration to be added to the assessable value under Finance Act, 1994. 2. Shri Anand Nainawati (Advocate) and Shri Rakesh Shah (Senior Manager) appeared on behalf of the appellant for personal hearing. Learned advocate argued during hearing and in the written submissions that the set-off claimed under Notification No. 432/86-CE dated 06.08.1986 is also a payment of duty and has been correctly shown on the gate passes issued by the appellant. It was also his case that though the set-off availed by the appellant has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m (I) Pvt. Limited - [2012 (283) ELT 359 (Guj.)] (d) Thandava Co-operative Sugars Limited - 2006 (205) ELT 1020 (Tri. Bang.)] (e) Gujarat State Fertilisers Chem. Limited - [2013 (289) ELT 489 (Tri.)] 2.2 So far as the recovery of set-off availed from the customers is concerned, it was argued that the same is not required to be added to the assessable value as per Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the judgment of M/s. Alcobox Metals (P) Limited vs. CCE Jaipur under order No. 626/89-A dated 29.09.1989 in appeal No. 817 of 1980. 3. Shri K. Sivakumar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that set-off scheme under Notification No. 432/86-CE dated 06.08.1986 is an exemption no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and differential duty of ₹ 30,88,632/- has been correctly confirmed against the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records including the written submissions made by either sides. The issue involved in this appeal is whether or not set-off claimed by the appellant as per Notification No. 432/86-CE dated 06.08.1986 is a duty assessed and paid on the gate passes. Relevant notification 432/86-CE is reproduced below:- Set off of duty on goods of Chapter 29, 30, 32, 34 38 on use of duty paid Naphthalene In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts excisab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. 2707.40 Naphthalene 32 Pigments, Synthetic Organic dyestuff 4. 2707.40 Naphthalene 29, 34, or 38 Leather tanning agents [Notification No. 432/86-C.E., Dated 06-08-1986] 4.1 It is observed from the above notification that the same is issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and exempts certain final products to an extent equivalent to duty of excise already paid on the input Naphthalene. There is no indication that duty paid on Naphthalene is eligible as credit and this notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no indication in the said judgment that the set-off as claimed by the appellant in that case was recovered from the customers as is the fact in the present proceedings. 5. So far as time-bar nature of the demand is concerned, learned AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Ahmedabad vs. Inductotherm (I) Pvt. Limited - [2012 (283) ELT 359 (Guj.)] in support of his argument that no time limit for recovery is prescribed under Section 11D and the Hon'ble High Court has held that demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be struck-down as time barred if the same has been issued within a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
