9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) has been made only on the ground that the rejected goods were not identified as generated out of the material returned under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules - the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) not sustainable and is set aside - matter remanded for fresh adjudication after considering the cross objection raised by the appellant - appeal disposed off. - E/245/12 - A/87253/16/SMB, M/87254/16/SMB - Dated:- 25-4-2016 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Ms.Aparna H. Advocate for appellant Shri.Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER 1. The appellant, M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. are the manufacturer of Polyethylene film and bags fallin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es through agglomeration (conversion into chips) and manufacture of polyethylene films, pouches and bags by admixture of regenerated granules with virgin granules. d) Statement showing the scrap arisen during printing, re-winding, re-sealing, re-treatment, agglomeration and manufacture of re-generated granules. 2. After analyzing the data, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,70,897/-. He also imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC. In respect of category (d) above, the appellant had paid an amount of ₹ 2,97,424/- in respect of scrap cleared which had arisen during printing , re-winding, re-sealing, re-treatment, agglomeration and manufacture of re-generated granules. M/s.Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenged by the assessee at the time of filing cross objections. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they had challenged the confirmation of ₹ 2,70,897/-, in their cross objection and therefore, it cannot be said that no appeal was filed. He argued that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect and needs to be set aside for this reason itself. She further argued that ₹ 2,97,424/- was already paid by them and there was no need of any confirmation. She argued that the said amount was indicated only as a indicator of duty paid on the waste and scrape generated during reprocessing of material received under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. The learned AR argued that the scrap generated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en under sub-rule (1) and in any other case the manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. Explanation. - The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods. 7. I find that the said assertion is without any basis as at no such assertion has been made either in the order-in-original or in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) has been made only on the ground that the rejected goods were not identified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
