9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of the following month or in case where the removal had taken place in March before 31st March of the relevant year. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the there has been delay in payment of duty so as to invoke Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Even though the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the deposit was made prior to the issuance of show cause notice, on facts, we found, such a contention is not tenable - No reason to interfere with order passed - Decided against Revenue. - E/973 to 983/2006 and E/986 & 987/2006 - Final Order No.40438 to 40450/2014 - Dated:- 27-6-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 20.9.2006 are reproduced below:- 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made, written as well as oral. The issue involved in the case is whether facility of payment of duty as provided under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is available, to the clearance of inputs / capital goods as such from the factory of manufacture. During the impugned period, the appellants had cleared cenvated inputs and capital goods as such to some of their job workers, to the original raw material suppliers and also to their sister concerns in other locations under cover of invoice prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. For such clearances, the appellants had paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital goods as such from the factory of manufacturer. 7. We find that on identical facts, the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Chennai Vs. SS Lumax Ltd. vide order/judgment dated 10.1.2014 in Civil Appeal No. 1418/2009 rejected the Revenues appeal. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:- The respondent / assessee are the manufacturers of headlamp assembly and motor vehicles part falling under CETA Heading No. 8512 and 8705. The assessee has been availing CENVAT credit on inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. During the period from April 2003 to March 2004, the assessee removed inputs as such, on which CENVAT credit was availed and the credit was not reversed on the date of removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the month i.e. much prior to the 5th day of the following month or in case where the removal had taken place in March before 31st March of the relevant year. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the there has been delay in payment of duty so as to invoke Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Even though the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the deposit was made prior to the issuance of show cause notice, on facts, we found, such a contention is not tenable. 8. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, all the appeals filed by Revenue are rejected. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
