9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed by the appellant under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20144/2019-SM - Final Order No. 21014/2019 - Dated:- 18-11-2019 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. T. R. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Mrs. C.V. Savitha, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 5.11.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are appellants are manufacturers of PCB assemblies and during February 2015, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven chronological facts involved in the present case which is reproduced herein below: a. The appellant had sent 890 quantity of PCB assembly to Chennai port to export the same to M/s. Victron Energy, Netherlands along with Invoice No.EXP 1510073 dated 19.11.2015. b. The appellant had generated the ARE-1 and cleared the goods to Chennai port with payment of excise duty with an intention to claim rebate (it is clear from the ARE-1 copy enclosed along with the appeal memorandum). c. The said goods were returned back to the appellant factory due to the heavy rain DC/AC of customs is enclosed along with the appeal memorandum. d. As 890 units which were cleared with payment of duty of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii. Total ₹ 17,02,316/- j. The credit so availed as above was utilized towards he duty liability payable for the month of February 2016. Accordingly, the appellant had disclosed only the net payable as below after adjustment of credit is shown in the ER1 returns. i. Total duty payable ₹ 17,09,145/- ii. Total credit utilized ₹ 17,02,316/- iii. Balance payable as reflected in returns ₹ 6,829/- k. Apart from the above, the appellant had re-exported 649 units during February 2016 under LUT without payment of duty, in this regard the ARE-1 for re-export has been enclosed along with the appeal memorandum. l. Even the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 It is further submitted that the goods sold to M/s. Sartorius Mechtronics India Ltd. were returned back for not meeting buyer s requirement and this fact is evident from the GRN s and therefore, he is eligible to take credit on the sales return as per the provisions of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He further submitted that the appellant has fulfilled the requirement of Rule 16(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and has rightly adjusted the duty payment against the demand for the month of February and the differential duty of ₹ 6,829/- was paid by debit as per their ER1 returns. He prayed that this case may be remanded back to the original authority to verify the records and decide the issue afresh on the basis of reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
