9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 2000 itself showed the aggregate duty of 16% ad valorem and were stamped with stamp showing apportionment as per the said notification. It has to be taken into consideration that the Notification was issued on 01.03.2000 and was being applied immediately thereafter in the same month when it may still have been in the process of being figured out as to how be depict the aggregate duty @ 16% ad valorem in the excise invoices. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant did not stand to gain in any way whatsoever by doing such apportionment because it was not as if the BED credit would have lapsed if the entire duty shown in the invoices was taken as BED Credit because it was paying BED in cash to the tune of Crores of ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant was not allowed to do so as it had to take credit of duty as shown in the invoices and as a consequence, an amount of ₹ 61,77,847/- paid as AED(ST) by overdrawing from the cenvat credit account of AED(ST) as it would have gone into red by an equivalent amount if credit of 50% of duty shown in invoices was not taken under AED(ST). 2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant pleaded/ contended as under: (i) Jalgaon Unit is its sister unit and was availing of Notification No. 17/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 in terms of which the aggregate rate of duty is 16% ad-valorem and as per para 2 of the said notification this duty is to be apportioned equally between the duty leviable under Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Additional Duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sserts has to establish, save when the statute expressly casts the burden on the accused which is not the case here. We do not find any basis in the impugned order to be able to sustain the finding/ observation of the adjudicating authority that the invoices were stamped subsequently as an afterthought. That apart it is pertinent to note that the supplier unit and the recipient unit belong to the same corporate entity, and so the recipient unit (the appellant) was aware that the goods have been cleared on payment of aggregate duty @ 16% ad valorem as per Notification No. 17/2000-CE which clearly states that this duty is to be apportioned equally between BED AED(ST) (para 2 of the Notification refers). It is a fact that the notification w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
