9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 51194 of 2014 - Final Order No. 52704/2017 - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Rep by Sh. Hemant Bajaj, Adv. Rep. by Sh. H.C. Saini, DR ORDER The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. JAI-EXCUS-002-COM-084-13-14 dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The period in dispute is October 2011 to December 2011. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the assessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Zinc/Lead Concentrates falling under Chapter 26 of the First Schedule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment, and perused the written submissions. 4. During the course of arguments, Shri Hemant Bajaj, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants, submits that in the present case there is no delay pertaining to the reversal of credit, hence there is no question of charging the interest. Shri H.C. Saini, learned DR for the Department, supports the impugned order. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, it appears that an identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in assessee-Appellants own case [Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur] in Appeal No. E/4041/2012, Final Order No. 54015/2016 dated 07.10.2016, wherein it was observed that : 3 ............We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of clause (c) read with clause (h) and have deposited the amount so determined, by 30th June in the succeeding financial year as prescribed. 4. In the present case, the impugned order clearly records that the appellant reversed the credit attributable to the exempted clearances, as such the substantial compliance with reference to Rule 6 has been recorded. However, we note that there is a delay in reversing the proportionate credit by the appellant. The liability of interest for the delayed reversal of credit is confirmed against the appellant. Except for this, we find that there is no legal justification to demand 5% on the value of exempted clearances in the present case. In view of the above discussion, we find the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
