9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Chapter Heading 8536 and 9028 of CETA, 1985. On scrutiny of the ER-1 Returns filed by the appellant for the month of April, 2014 to May, 2014, it was observed that they had shown clearance of 12402 nos. of goods falling under 90289010 valued at Rs. 26,45,347/- on payment of duty at the rate of 10% against the actual rate of 12%. During the month of May, 2014, 15155 nos. of goods falling under CETSH 90289010 valued at Rs. 34,45,862/- was manufactured and cleared at the rate of 10% against the actual rate of 12%. A demand notice was issued to them for the differential duty by the concerned Range Officer. After due process of law, the lower authority, on finding that the appellant had short paid duty to the tune of 2& ad valorem, confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action was NOT A SALE of the goods but "Rejected materials returned to Original Supplier within Guarantee period". He further submitted that both the authorities have wrongly interpreted the return of the goods for replacement as sale of full-fledged electric meters. He also submitted that since the goods were rejected on quality, it does not become manufactured goods because the goods have failed in marketability test. He also submitted that while purchasing the inputs, he availed CENVAT credit of 10% and while returning the goods to the supplier, he pays 10% duty which he availed earlier. 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that as per the case set up by the appellant, the appellant purchased the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of assembling of the inputs and made electric meters which is the finished goods and the same was returned to the original supplier, it would tantamount the selling of finished goods and not the inputs for replacement. Further, I find that the appellants have failed to prove that the same goods which were sent for repair/replacement were received back by the appellant. Further, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that the appellant had bought the inputs only and not the finished products i.e. electric meters and cleared from their factory the manufactured goods which were ready for clearance from their factory on payment of applicable duty. Further, I find that at the time of clearance from the factory, the charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
