9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturer - It is apparent that in terms of Rule 6, the duty is paid on behalf of the supplier of inputs under the said procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. Since the goods was received in the factory, the respondents were entitled to the credit of the same. A perusal of the show-cause notice shows that while the duty has been demanded for diversion of the goods received under Rule 19 (2) of the Central Excise Rules. No allegation that the said goods were used by the appellant for other purposes. Demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party and when it was pointed out, the respondent paid the duty by issue of supplementary invoices. The respondent took credit of the said duty on the basis of said supplementary invoices. The Revenue had alleged that the duty was not paid as a result of suppression mis-declaration, etc. and consequently in terms of Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondent could not have availed the Cenvat Credit of the same. It was alleged that the respondent suppressed the price revision of the goods received under Rule 19 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The notice was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the notice on the ground of both limitation as well as merits. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty was paid in respect of material received by the respondent. He argued that in terms of Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, differential duty is to be paid when the goods received by them duty free are not used for the intended purpose. He argued that in terms of said rules they have discharged the duty and the said duty was in respect of material received by them and not in respect of materials sold/dispatched by them. He further pointed out that they had made a remark on the supplementary invoice which reads as follows: "Being duty in respect of HR Coils received under Central Excise (Removal of Goods at concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2001 from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer of the goods from whom he had obtained these and every such returned goods shall be added to the non-duty paid stock of the manufacturer of the subject goods and dealt with accordingly. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that subject goods shall be deemed not to have been used for the intended purpose even if any of the quantity of the subject goods is lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accidents (during transport from the place of procurement to the manufacturer's premises or from the manufacturer's premises to the place of procurement) or during handling or storage in the manufacturer's premises'. 5.1 A perusal of the aforesaid rules clearly shows that the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
