9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.162-CE/MRT-II/2011 dated 31.05.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Menthol and DMO and they were availing Small Scale Exemption under Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise duty of Rs. 24,72,000/- under proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In reply to show cause notice appellant submitted that during the Financial Year 2006-07, on 16th March appellant had received goods under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 having clearance value of Rs. 6,69,600/- and that said goods were re-made and once again cleared in the next Financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the show cause notice was issued by erroneous computation of value of clearance for the Financial Year 2006-07 and submitted that the goods which were cleared during the Financial Year 2006-07 having clearance value of Rs. 6,69,600/- were returned for being re-made as provided under Rule 16 of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, relying on the precedent decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Kusum Kemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), we hold that the value of clearance of Rs. 6,69,600/- should not be counted towards computation of value of clearance for the Financial Year 2006-07. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that during the Financial Year 2006-07 the value of clearance was less than t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
