9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of piston, once they are melted, in the normal process pistons would be manufactured again and such manufactured piston would be cleared. Therefore in terms of Rule 16 also even if the pistons were taken back for processing after removal the appellants would be perfectly well within his rights to take back the credit of duty paid by the assessee at the time of removal and utilise the same for payment of duty on the finished goods. Therefore there is considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 would be available in this case. Thus the situation here is comparable to the provisions of Rule 16 and since the goods have not been removed on payment of duty, benefit of Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act, 1944 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The learned counsel submits that very fact that appellant intimated would show that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and there was no intention to misdeclare or suppress the fact. Therefore extended period could not have been invoked. In any case the appellant had intimated the fact of removal for such purposes and therefore such intimation would show clearly that the appellant had no intention to suppress the fact at all from the department. Even though there was no legal obligation to intimate, they have done so. Moreover he also submits that according to Board s instruction when such application is made permission should be given within 2 days and this has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lost to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, in case of marketability, rule requires a claim by the manufacturer only and not satisfaction of the Commissioner. Therefore what is required is only a claim that the goods are not marketable and it appears from the Rules that Commissioner may not be able to go into the correctness of the claim made by the assessee unless it is shown that the goods have been removed to the market and sold and there was intentional evasion of duty. That being the position, once the letter is written by the appellant, statutory obligation of making a claim is fulfilled. Therefore once such a claim is made, proceedings can be initiated for denying remission of duty if the department felt that no remission is called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
