9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be accepted as such and therefore, they have to be considered as TV sets manufactured afresh and duty has to be paid. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 26,50,000/- which is the difference between duty paid by way of reversal of Cenvat credit at the time of removal of the TV sets under Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and total amount payable on TV sets if they were new and Cenvat credit could not have been taken on the same. In this case, it is the submission that the entire amount has been paid on this basis cannot be accepted. If the stand taken by the Revenue and confirmed by the authorities below is correct, the appellant could not have taken Cenvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Revenue is that TV sets never came back to the factory. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that in the 'Appeal Memorandum' before us as well as in the reply to the show-cause notice before the Commissioner, the appellant had submitted a detailed statement giving details of models of TV sets, invoice number, dates etc. and showing details of TV sets which were sold. After going through the statement, we find that it is not possible to tally the returned TV sets with the dispatched ones. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has no problem in preparing a statement matching the removed TV sets with the received ones. It is the submission of learned counsel that there is no clear observation that this statement has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered as manufacture. Therefore, the appellant should have reversed the entire amount of Cenvat credit taken at the time of return of TV sets to their factory and not the amount payable on fresh removal of TV sets as duty during the relevant period. Therefore, the entire amount of Cenvat credit of Rs. 91,32,852/- should have been reversed whereas the appellant had paid only about Rs. 65 lakhs towards duty. The balance was paid subsequently. In our opinion, the appellant should pay the difference between the amount paid at the time of removal of TV sets and actual payable plus interest as applicable thereon. No doubt, the appellant has deposited the different amount but interest is yet to be paid. In our opinion, the appellant shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
