9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id by the SEZ Developer on non-fulfillment of the condition of the bond, as the appellant could not return the goods within the stipulated time. Such duty was admittedly paid, although under wrong head (Customs duty) and the same have been accepted by the appellant. Accordingly, I hold that the procedure of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not come in the way in denying the credit. I hold that the appellant is entitled to take credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as they have admittedly received the goods under proper documents reflecting the duty involved and the said duty have been admittedly paid on the removal of the goods, being the SEZ Developer, to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the SEZ Authority, vide permission dated 05/12/2008 the purchaser- SEZ Developer returned the goods vide pre-authenticated Challan under rule 27(9) of SEZ Rules, 2006 wherein the Challan is marked for removal of defective goods to domestic tariff area for replacement, not for sale defective material for replacement, material removed vide permission No. Cus/DLF/Misc./2000/87 dated 05/12/2008 giving the value and the duty involved. Accordingly, vide 8 such Challans the total goods supplied was returned. As the appellant manufacturer could not replace the defective goods within the time permitted, M/s DLF (SEZ Developer) deposited the duty of ₹ 10, 57, 084/- with GAR Challan number 09/09-10 dated 23/07/2009 after obtaining permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoval and the said goods are subsequently brought back to the factory. The show cause proposed to disallow the Cenvat credit of ₹ 10, 57, 084/- as wrongly taken with further proposal to appropriate from the amount already reversed along with interest and penalty was also proposed. 4. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 35/Addl. Commissioner/M-II/2014-15 dated 12/09/2014, on the contest confirming the demand of Cenvat credit under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and further appropriating the same from the amount already reversed. Further, interest was demanded for ₹ 27, 108/-. However, no penalty was imposed. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of clandestine removal, the goods were removed under proper ARE -1 procedure under bond to the SEZ Developer. Further, the said developer under proper procedure returned the goods, under bond, for replacement and when the said goods could not be replaced within the given time, the said SEZ Developer paid the duty which have been claimed from the appellant and the said claim have been admitted and entertained by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant should be held entitled to take the Cenvat credit under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is further urged that under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, Challan is one of the duty paying documents on which credit can be taken. 6. The ld. AR fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
