2004 (10) TMI 250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he respondents manufacture Iron and Steel wires. They cleared their final product on payment of duty. In certain cases, such product after clearance was brought back to the factory as the same was rejected by their buyers. On such re-entry, the respondents took credit of the duty paid originally. Processed the defective goods to the extent possible by redrawing the wire from it. When it was not po .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e rejected wire is put to further processing. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this contention of the respondent and also agreed that the assessee was informing the department, the process to which the rejected wire was put to and therefore there could be no suppression. 4. The Revenue before me argues that under Rule 57 F3(a) the assessee should have debited an amount equal to the amoun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e factory. It is enough, if an assessee pays duty on scrap based on its value. The differential duty worked out of by the Revenue - credit amount minus duty paid on scrap - is not tenable. Thus on merits, the Revenue's plea does not stand. It is not necessary to examine the time bar aspect in view of my finding that the Revenue's appeal has no merit. 7. Revenue's appeal is rejected. Appeal No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X