9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004 - time bar. Held that: - It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had paid the amount equal to 5% of value of exempted goods cleared by it on job work basis to the principal manufacturer, in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. Since such option has been exercised by the appellant suo-moto and due intimation regarding such payment has been filed before the Central Excise Department, in my opinion, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the demand, in terms of the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the issue regarding applicability of the explanation appended to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 ibid was debatable, for which the officers of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Excise Appeal No.E/54914/2014 & E/58540/2013-Ex[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 544242-54243/2015 - Dated:- 15-9-2015 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Mr. Vikrant Kackria, (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. G R Singh, DR for the Respondent Per S. K. Mohanty: Brief facts of the case are as follows:- 1.1 `The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Pipes, falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The MS Pipes manufactured by the appellant are removed from the factory on payment of Central Excise duty. The appellant also undertakes the activity of job work of manufacture of the said final product out of the input i.e. C.R. Coils supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of explanation-II appended to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute was adjudicated by the Department in confirming the cenvat demand of ₹ 34,44,023/- along with equal amount of penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence this present appeal is before the Tribunal. 2. At the outset, Sh. Vikrant Kackria, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Show Cause proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Department is barred by limitation of time. According to him, the period of dispute is from November 2010 to March 2011; whereas, the SCN was issued in 6.9.2012. According to the Ld. Advocate, since the issue involves interpretation of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the explanation-II to the facts and circumstances of the present case is perplexed, inasmuch as, under the accounting principles, there is no requirement of maintenance of records for apportionment of inputs for manufacture of both category of goods (dutiable and exempted). 3. Sh. GR Singh, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since the input H.R. Coils supplied by the principal manufacturer were exclusively used for the manufacture of M.S. Pipes by availing exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, the appellant is liable to reverse the cenvat credit. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) ibid. Thus, the benefit of the extended period of limitation shall not be available on reversal of such amount. 7. The appellant has filed another appeal, which has been listed as appeal no. E/58540/2013. The issue involves refund of ₹ 10,09,175/-, which was deposited at the time of audit. The appellant submits that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the audit report has attained finality vide order dated 12.02.2014, and thus, the said amount is eligible for refund. I am of the view that the appellant is eligible for refund of ₹ 10,09,175/-. However, sanction of the said refund amount is subject to verification of the unjust enrichment aspect by the original authority. 8. Both the appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
