9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri T.R. Rastogi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. - Excise Appeal Nos. 3073 to 3078 of 2004 are by the same party; they arise out of the common orders-in-Appeal No. 510-15-CE/DLH/2003, dated 10-12-2003; the issues involved in all these appeals are also identical and relate to denial/restriction of part of the refund claims filed by the appellant. 1.2 Excise Appeal No. 4662 of 2004 is also by the same appellant against the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 103-CE/DLH/2004 dated 21-6-2004. Excise Appeal No. 4677 is by the Department against the same Order-in-Appeal of the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relates. The refund claims were filed in prescribed time limit under the Act. (f) The original authority, on principle, held that they are eligible for the refunds claimed. However, he reduced the refund claims on two grounds- The appellant sold scrap generated during the manufacture of the final products without payment of duty. Each of the refund claim was reduced to the extent of duty held payable on the scrap. In respect of some months the appellant has claimed refund of cenvat even in respect of inputs, which though received in the particular month to which the refund related, were not utilised in the same month. (g) The details of refund applied, sanctioned and total deduction are as follows :- Month of 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cash refunds sought by the appellant). (b) The original authority confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on M/s. Philco Exports. (c) Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand; he further held that sum of Rs. 6,54,401/- stands already recovered by way of reducing the refund amount and, therefore, the order of the original authority debiting a further sum of Rs. 6,54,401/- in cenvat credit account was not correct. (d) The appellant is in appeal against demand of Rs. 6,54,401/- which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department is on appeal contending that the claim of refund was for the credit accumulated in the cenvat account; the amount of Rs. 6,54,401/- which was not sanctioned continued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He submits that no duty is due to be paid on the scrap. The show cause notices proposing demand of duty was clearly time-barred as they have furnished all the relevant information by their letter dated 27-10-2002. 4.2.3 Even if it is held that duty is payable on the scrap, they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 9/2002. Denial of the concessional rate of duty prescribed under Notification No. 9/2002 merely on the ground that option was not exercised is not justified. It was also submitted that only for certain months the rate of duty on scrap has been applied erroneously by denying the concession under Notification No. 9/2002. 5.1 Learned DR submits that the scrap generated during the course of manufacture was dutiabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in each refund related to credits on inputs which inputs have not been used in the same month. This ground is only technical in nature. There is time lag between the date of receipt of the inputs, the date on which they use the particular consignment of inputs and the date of export of the final products. They have claimed the refunds of the credit month-wise i.e. month in which the input has been received. The refund claims relating to the period from April 2002 to November 2002 have been sanctioned in the months of May 2003 (one claim), August 2003 (one claim) and September 2003 (4 claims). It has not been denied that the entire inputs have been used for the manufacture of the final products in the succeeding months and the final products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation vide their letter dated 22-10-2002. Therefore, the demand should be restricted to the normal period of limitation. 7.3 We find that the appellant claimed refund of amount lying in cenvat credit; and reduced amount was sanctioned. We agree with the ld. DR that whatever amount was not sanctioned continued to lie in their cenvat account. It was not a case of adjustment of any dues from the refund sanctioned. The question adjusting amounts which are not confirmed demands does not arise. Then there was no need to issue notices proposing demand of duties and issue of speaking orders. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no need to debit the duty demanded from their cenvat credit as per the direction of the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
