9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - recovery mechanism under Rule 3(4) - time limitation - Held that: - the duty is payable only on the net quantity which has been supplied by the appellants. The quantity which has come back to the appellants cannot be considered as removal of input and no duty can be demanded on that quantity - demand not sustainable - issue of limitation not taken up as demand set aside - appeal dismissed - dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants took up the appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed their appeal on the ground that there is no recovery mechanism for the amount payable under Rule 3(4) and also the demand was set aside on the ground of limitation. However, a penalty of ₹ 5000/- was imposed under Rule 27 for contravention of Rule. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, revenue is before me. 2. Shri M.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Shri V.K. Agarwal, appearing for the respondent submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand on the ground that there is no recovery mechanism for an amount payable in terms of Rule 57AB of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, no ground was made in the department s appeal on this particular issue. Therefore the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue attained finalit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also was not sustainable. He placed reliance on their own case reported in 2006 (194) ELT 417 which was upheld by the Supreme Court r eported in 2016 (335) ELT 577 (SC). 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides. I find that the fact is not under dispute that whatever the net quantity stood supplied by the appellants to their sister concern they have discharged the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
