9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gress into telecommunication and power transmission cables. These compounds are said to be of highly specific configuration in order to successfully carry out and discharge the functions as required and attain high grade electric resistance property to ensure good functioning of the field cable. The appellant had cleared 26,000/- Kgs. of Cable Filling Compound (Macogel OE-10) to their customers M/s. Benz Files Exports Pvt.Ltd. under cover of Central Excise Invoice Nos.22 dated 22.06.2008 and 25 and 26 both dated 26.06.2008. The said goods were however returned to their factory on the grounds of non-matching of requisite specifications and were entered in RG-23A Part-I for the month of June 2008. Vide their letter dated 29.06.2008, the juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said amount has already been paid and they are prepared to pay the interest thereon as well. 3. I have heard Shri Aditya Dutta, Ld.Advocate for the appellant and Shri B.K.Singh, Ld.Authorized Representative for the Revenue in the matter. 4. Ld.Advocate for the appellant points out that they have done no wrong as far as duty of Rs. 11,24,760/- is concerned and have rightfully availed the Cenvat credit at the time of the receipt of the goods, besides also intimated to the department informing them that the said goods were returned for further re-processing, reconditioning in the factory. However for reasons best known, the department chose to remain silent in the matter and it was nearly one and half years later that the department ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable with them besides the fact of clearances being recorded in statutory records. He therefore submits that the department has deliberately chosen to ignore such evidence as staring on the face of it. Thus they contend that confirming the duty demanded in the show cause notice is ex facie illegal and improper. As regards the shortfall of certain products referred supra, the appellant submits that they have already paid the duty deficient and are also ready to pay interest thereon. 5. The Ld.AR for the department however supports the orders passed by the lower authorities. 6. I have perused the case records as well as the documentary evidence on record. It is noticed that the appellant at the time of first clearance of the impugned goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants successfully negotiated new customers for supplying the said material on which credit was availed is borne out from records. This aspect is provided in law in terms of Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules and therefore cannot be faulted upon. The department having chosen to remain silent when the intimation dated 30.06.2008 upon return of the impugned goods was conveyed, it is not open for them to rake up the matter after almost 16-17 months. Be as it may, as claimed by the appellant that they paid the duty on the said amount on account of incessant insistence by the Revenue it is settled law that any amount that is otherwise not due to the department cannot be retained by them. The department is not eligible to hold on to any amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
