9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 – Intention to evade payment not proved and demand set aside - E/506 & 507/2006 - 999 & 1000/2007 - Dated:- 28-8-2007 - [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - These appeals have been filed against the Orders-in-Appeals No. 10 and 11/2006(T) - C.E. dated 15-2-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Guntur. 2. There are actually two appellants M/s. Super ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, they cleared the yarn on payment of duty. The duty payment was made through the modvat credit which was in their balance. Revenue proceeded against both the appellants on the following grounds. 3. It was contended by Revenue that the final product is exempted by way of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. Therefore, no Modvat credit can be availed and such products cannot be cleared on payment of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the job worker has always the option to avail any exemption notification. It is not compulsory that he should avail a particular notification. Moreover, it was pointed out that Notification No. 6/2000-CE is a conditional Notification. In the present case, the job worker did not opt to avail the said exemption. Therefore, the finished goods were cleared on payment of duty by availing the Modvat cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bharati Mobile Communications Ltd. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 128 There is no dispute over the fact that the job worker in the present case has discharged the duty liability on the finished goods. The original authority has made an elaborate discussion and has held that only the principal manufacturer has to discharge the duty liability in terms of Rule 96(E). We do not find anything in Rule 96(E) whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er period. The period involved is June 2002 to April 2002 and the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 18-5-2005. On examination of the facts on records, we cannot hold that there is an intention to evade duty especially, when duty has been paid. Therefore, there is no justification for invocation of the longer period. In these circumstances, the impugned Orders-in-Appeal have no merits. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
