TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yan, Member (T)]. Respondents M/s. Caterpillar India Ltd. had cleared credit availed inputs as such during the period 2/01 to 9/02. They had paid duty on the inputs as if the same had been manufactured by them. Compared to the credit availed, they had paid higher amounts on removal of the inputs and therefore they claimed refund of the excess duty paid under four claims for different periods as per the following details. Each claim also included duty paid on abatements held to be admissible from the respective values adopted for payment of duty on the inputs. Sl. No. Dale of filing Claim Period to which claim relates Refund claimed Rs. 1. 19-6-2001 9-2-01 to 30-4-01 4,43,890 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material period. Another issue is if grant of refund found admissible would entail unjust enrichment of the respondents. During the material period viz. from 9-2-01 to 28-2-03, Rule 57AB(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules (CER), Rule 57AB(1)(c) of CER, Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2001 and Rule 3(4) of CCR 2002 regulated payment of the duty on removal of inputs or capital goods as such in different spells as follows. Explanation to Rule 57B(i)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (9-2-01 upto 28-2-2001) Explanation :- When inputs or capital goods are removed from the factory, the manufacturer of the final products shall pay the appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon as if such inputs or capital goods have been manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable to such goods on the date of such removal and on the value determined for such goods under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Act, as the case may be, and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in Rule 7. These provisions were of to the effect that the amount payable was the duty as if such inputs had been manufactured by the assessees. The amount was equal to the duty of excise leviable on such goods at the rate applicable on the date of their removal on the value determined for such goods under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. The Revenue has raised the ground that the respondents had paid appropriate duty on impugned removals of inputs during the material period in accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided in Eicher Tractors case that during the period when the erstwhile sub-rule (1)C of Rule 57AB of CER and Rule 3(4) of CCR, 2001/2002, a manufacturer was required to pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of inputs or capital goods at the time of their removal as such. This position remained unchanged under Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004. In para 6 of the above decision, the Tribunal had observed as follows :- 6. It is seen that the Board vide its circular dated 25-4-2005 has categorically said that clarifications given in this Circular supersede the earlier Circular dated 1-7-2002. The revenue cannot argue against its own Circular, when the Board has stated that the provisions of the Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
