9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. 22/03-C.E. subsequently allows a 100% EOU to procure capital goods without payment of duty against CT-3 Certificate. Since a reading of both the sub-rules together makes it clear that what is sought to be reversed is in the nature of duty and the same duty is exempted under the Notification for specific cases, such as supply to 100% EOU – Since the goods had been removed only after considerable use the same can not be held as removal as such – demand is not sustainable - E/969/2005 - 1111/2008 - Dated:- 4-8-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order upholding the order of the lower authority. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned order. Therefore, they have come before this Tribunal for relief. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that the removal under cover of CT-3 certificate from the domestic unit to EHTP unit is not legitimate. It has been stated that the appellants knowingly cleared the item under CT-3 certificate without giving full information to the authorities. He has stated there is no provision to remove the capital goods without payment of duty under the Central Excise Law, when the credit has been taken. The appellants have relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Madura Coats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble period of time. However, the appellants had removed it to the EHTP unit only with the permission of the department by availing the benefit of relevant notification by which the goods can be supplied to EHTP unit or EOU unit without payment of duty. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the department to have persuaded the appellant to pay duty on these goods on which the Cenvat credit has taken. This point is directly addressed in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Manaksia Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata (cited supra). Para 4 of the said decision is reproduced below: 4. After hearing both sides and perusing the case records and the cited Rule and Notification No. 22/03-C.E.., I find that the purpose of the said Rule 3(4) is to recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
