9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. 2. The issue in this appeal are that :- "(i) Whether or not, Central Excise Duty of Rs. 250673/- involved on the stock allegedly found short is demandable/recoverable from the party under Section 11A of the said Act. (ii) Whether or not, differential duty of Rs. 11,33,189/- which has allegedly not been paid on the clearances of irregular blocks of PU Foam made to the related parties is demandable/recoverable from them under the proviso to Section 11A ibid by invoking extended period of limitation. (iii) Whether or not, Central Excise Duty of Rs. 3,18,683/- involved on the quantity of waste inputs viz. Waste Polythene and waste HDPE bags allegedly cleared without payment duty is demandable/recoverable from them under the proviso to Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 2002, rule-13 of erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and rule-15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section-11AC ibid is liable to be imposed upon them; and (x) Whether or not, Shri P. Patel, Director of the party and Shri Ajay Prakash Tiwari, Manager (Excise) of the party are liable to penalty under rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and under rule-26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002." 3. So far as the first issue is concerned regarding shortage of inputs, the learned counsel states that there is no case of clandestine removal made out and appellant had paid the duty worked out as calculated by Revenue in order to purchase peace and/or avoid litigation. No instance of any clandestine removal was found by the Revenue at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on clearance of duty paid inputs like papers, polythene and HDPE bags which have been used in production and thereafter remains as waste are disposed of. Whether duty is demandable on such disposal of waste. 8. Considered the rival contentions, we hold that it is an admitted case that these are not manufactured goods of the appellant and rather remains and waste which have been removed after being consumed and/or utilized. Accordingly, we hold that no duty is payable on removal of goods/ waste not manufactured by the appellant. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 3,18,683/- is set aside. 9. The next issue is related to levy of duty on removal of, burnt machinery as scrap. We find that period of removal of such machinery, was during the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 94,41,292/- have been rightly allowed and recovered from the appellant under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 readwith Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, on the inputs purchased by the appellant. The suppliers subsequently granted rebate on the quantities purchased by the appellant on inputs. However, although the valuation for payment of excise duty is altered, but the duty paid is not altered by the suppliers and accordingly the learned counsel urges that they are not required to recover any amount of Cenvat credit taken on the such inputs. 14. The learned D.R. relies on the impugned order. 15. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that C.B.E.C. vide Circular No. 877/15/2008-CX dated 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
