9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e i.e. applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) in case of exempted clearance and has not taken into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The earlier proceedings iniated against the same assessee were dealt with by Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 20.11.2009 observed that in case of exempted goods and clearance on payment of duty which is much more than the amount required in terms of Rule 6(3)(b), there is no question of further payment - also, when the appellant had paid duty on their final product they must have paid the same by utilizing the credit so availed by them in respect of common input used for dutiable as also exempted final product in which case there would be no question of further neutralization of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of parts accessories and have cleared the same on payment of duty. They also contended that during the period in question they have already paid duty on parts and accessories to the extent of ₹ 63,95,931/-. If the Revenue is of the view that they have to pay 10% of the value of the exempted goods which according to the Revenue is to the tune of ₹ 53,24,644/- the same may be adjusted from the duty already paid by them and the balance be refunded to them. 5. The Commissioner did not find favour with the said plea of the appellant. He observed the duty paid by them on the exempted items stand collected from their customers, whereas amount of 10% liable to be paid in terms of provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) cannot be collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case. 7. We also find that the earlier proceedings iniated against the same assessee were dealt with by Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 20.11.2009 observed that in case of exempted goods and clearance on payment of duty which is much more than the amount required in terms of Rule 6(3)(b), there is no question of further payment. We also note here that when the appellant had paid duty on their final product they must have paid the same by utilizing the credit so availed by them in respect of common input used for dutiable as also exempted final product in which case there would be no question of further neutralization of cenvat credit. 8. In view of the forgoing, we find no merits in the Revenue s stand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
