9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has following the decision in the case of M/S VOLTAMP TRANSFORMERS LTD. VERSUS CCE VADODARA [ 2011 (9) TMI 648 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] hold that the goods supplied under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 is not exempted, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of CCR, 2004 are not applicable. These facts are found support from the decision relied upon by the Ld. AR as in the case of UOI AND ORS. VERSUS IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD. [ 2011 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon ble Apex Court is clarities that the taxing statute must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed. It is not permissible to import provisions in taxing statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency . It means that the dutiable goods cannot become exempted goods as per the convenience of the revenue - Moreover, the circular which has been relied by the revenue have no mention of notification in question and the Revenue has presumed that if the notification in question is not part of the Circular No. 973/07/2013-CX dated 04.09.2013 then the provisions of Rule 6 (3) is applicable. The said understanding of the revenue is against the mandate of law as it is based of assumpti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty was imposed. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant submits that SFIS duty credit scrips/licenses were issued by the DGFT as per Chapter 3 of the FTP and Para 3.12.8 of the FTP states that duty credit scrips are permitted to be utilized for payment of excise duty in terms of Department of Revenue Notification for procurement from domestic sources, in respect of items permitted for imports under SFIS Duty Credit Scrip. Thus, SFIS scrips provide an alternate way of paying the duty on goods other than discharging the duty liability in cash or through Cenvat. The Ld. Counsel drew my attention on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd. vs. CCE Vadodara 2011 (9) TMI 648 CESTAT, AHMEDABAD to say that the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case and the said decision has been affirmed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court reported in 2013 (296) ELT A16 (Guj). She further submits that the said decision was followed by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (9) TMI 694 CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd. (supra) wherein the facts of the case as under:- 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein is a manufacturer of transformers and are availing CENVAT Credit on duty paid of inputs used in the manufacturing of finished products. During the relevant period from May 2007 to November 2007, the appellants cleared various transformers i.e. finished goods by availing benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification No.34/2006-CE, dt.14.06.06, as amended by Notification No.41/2006-CE, dt.13.10.06. The said notification grants exemption to the excisable goods from the whole of duty subject to the condition that the buyer has to produce duty free certificate issued under 'Served From India Scheme' (SFIS) as per Para 3.6.4 of Foreign Trade Policy 2006-2007. The appellants cleared the finished goods by debiting the duty amount from the certificate produced by the buyers. In the said case this Tribunal observed as under:- We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. There is no dispute that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EPB Scheme cannot be treated an exempted goods, but they can only be treated to be duty-paid goods and therefore, the interest is payable as per Section 61(2) of the Act. The debit of any amount under the DEPB Scheme is a mode of payment of duty on the imported goods and cannot be treated as exempted goods, unlike the goods under DEEC Scheme. We are unable to answer the questions raised by the appellant in its favour. Therefore, the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. 11. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing it is held that debits made in SFIS would not amount to exemption from payment of duty. I hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. and the said decision has been affirmed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. 8. Further, the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has following the decision in the case of M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd. (supra) hold that the goods supplied under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 is not exempted, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
