9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Tribunal was right in law in applying the provisions of Rule 9(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to a case of inter unit transfer of semi finished goods, where there is no question of clandestine removal to any third party by way of sale? 2. Whether in view of the notification issued under section 11C regarding clearance of dough , CENVAT credit can be denied on the ground that the dough was cleared clandestinely without payment of duty from one unit to another of the same company? 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of dough falling under chapter 19092000 and Cookies falling under CSH 19053100 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. 4. For the period 1.3.2005 to 24.1.2006, a show cause notice was issued by the Central Excise aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In second appeal, the CESTAT confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against which, the present appeal is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It would appear that the appellant had approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of proceedings initiated against it after the investigation in January 2006. Reference has been made by the Revenue to the order of the settlement commission in the case of this appellant dated 6.12.2006. He would rely upon the factual finding confirming suppression, in paragraph 7 extracted below;- 7. The next submission of the applicant is regarding immunity from interest and penalty on the ground that they have effected payment before issue of the Show Cause Notice. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Settlement Commission by the Single Judge and the confirmation thereof by the Division Bench, the order of the settlement commission and the findings rendered therein, stand obviated. Reliance by the CESTAT on such findings therein are consequently misplaced. 8. An order of the Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT, in the case of SSR Foods and Beverages Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad (2010) 259 ELT 750 on identical facts was brought to our attention. The appellant in that case was also engaged in the manufacture of cookies and had availed CENVAT credit on dough purchased from Australian Foods India Private Limited, the appellant before us. The matter travelled to the CESTAT on an identical factual and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption from Duty, notification 20/2009-CE (N.T.) dated 18.8.2009 issued by the Board in terms of section 11C indicates that there was an intention to exempt dough from the payment of duty. The notification refers to the period 28.2.2005 to 27.5.2008 which includes the period under dispute, being March 2005 to December 2006. The notification is extracted in entirety below:- "Dough for preparation of Bakers wares Exemption during period 28.2.2005 to 27.5.2008 Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of duty of excise (including non-levy thereof) under section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), on goods of the description given i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
