9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Pipes, M.S. Flanges and M.S. Specials Joint. They availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for supplies made to Bilaspur Jaipur Water Supply Project, Jaipur, which has been financed by Japan Bank of International Cooperation, Japan, and Japan Bank of International Corporation, which were not notified as international organization under Section 3 of the United Nation Privileges and Immunities Act, 1947. Accordingly, they were not entitled for the said exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE. Alternatively, the Appellants claimed the benefit under Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 which provides for removal of goods duty-free when supplied under Internatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h interest. As regards the Cenvat Credit availed by the Appellants of Rs. 5,01,217/- on 23rd December, 2009, it was held that, during the period when the goods were received and utilized for payment of duty on the goods cleared under SSI Exemption, they were not entitled to the Cenvat Credit and accordingly the said credit was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the Appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that, they have led evidence before the Court below that they also used bought out items which were directly used at the site and accordingly no duty is liable to be paid on such items valued at Rs. 4,89,734/-. Therefore, out of the assessable value of Rs. 78,59,372-, as determined by the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lementary excise invoices on 18.12.2009. They paid the entire duty along with interest on 23.12.2009 in respect of such exempted sales for which previously exemption as sought under international competitive bidding. 3.3 That the analysis of above chain of facts makes it ample clear that there was ample doubt on the issue right from the beginning. In order to clarify the doubts, the appellant tried to approach the departmental authorities from lower level to the highest level. He started from Range Office to Assistant Commissioner and finally to the Commissioner. The correspondences made with department in this regard are clear evident of this fact. Please refer letters dated 17.11.08, 3.3.09, 28.5.09, 2.6.09, 18.6.09, 17.9.09, reminder 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. Reliance is placed on following decisions..........." It is contended that, in view of the admitted facts and the series of correspondences with the Department informing about the exemption claimed, there is no malafide attributable to them and accordingly no penalty is liable to be imposed under Section 11-AC. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we are satisfied that the Appellants are entitled to deduction of the bought out items and accordingly liable to pay duty on the reduced turnover of Rs. 73,69,638/- on which they have paid duty of Rs. 7,59,073/-. Accordingly, we hold that there is no duty implication on this score. So far as penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
