TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2007 - M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and A. K. Srivastava, Member (T) [Order per: A. K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. -1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Vickers Systems International Ltd. against Order-in-Original No. 3/Central Excise/2007, dated 12-2-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I. The Commissioner, vide impugned order, has confirmed demand of Rs. 6,72,27,080/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 6,72,27,080/- under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also ordered for the recovery of interest on the duty of Rs. 6,72,27,080/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on the sale price was always more than their landed cost. 7. After carrying out the investigations, the Central Excise Department issued show cause notice dated 28-4-2006 to the appellants proposing to: (a) deny credit of Rs. 6,64,40,668/- (including Rs. 14,61,839/- for goods, lying in stock as on 17-8-2005) being the CVD availed during the period July, 2001 to July, 2005 on the goods imported on the ground that these goods were sold as such in India without using them in the manufacturing process. (b) deny credit of Rs. 7,86,412/- on inputs sent to the job worker for conversion under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 not received within 180 days. (c) impose penalty and interest upon the aforesaid amounts. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants had cleared such imported goods on the payment of duty, wherein the assessable value was based on the sale price. The sale price used to have a general mark-up of 30% on the landed cost. Hence, the sale price was always higher than the (value plus customs duty) at the time of import. Reversal of credit now demanded by the impugned order has already been reversed by the appellants. Duty paid at the time of clearance should be treated as reversal of the alleged ineligible credit. Hence, the demand is not maintainable, The entire credit availed on imported inputs has to be considered as utilized towards the payment of duty on the sale of such imported goods only. Therefore, the Department cannot once again demand the reversal, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng already been utilized for payment of duty. In the present case, since the amount of credit was in fact utilized for payment of duty of goods, which are admitted by the Department to be eligible for ex-emption and hence not liable for duty, utilization of such credit for payment of duty thereon would serve the purpose of disallowance of credit as required under Rule 57C. There would be a case for confirming the demand by bringing into play Rule 57C if credit had been taken but kept intact due to the inputs being used for the manufacture of the exempted goods, which were cleared without payment of duty availing of such exemption and such credit was being utilized for other goods not relatable to the inputs in question. That would be the on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 392 (T) (v) Stumpp Scheule Somaopa v. CCE - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1085 (T) (vi) Shivali Udyog v. CCE - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 94 (T) (vii) CCE v. M.P. Telelinks Ltd. - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 167 (T) (viii) Ajay Metachem v. CCE - 2006-TIOL-667-CESTAT-MUM (ix) Heat Shrink Technologies Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 437 (Tri.-Mumbai) = 2007-TIOL-463-CESTAT-MUM (x) Creative Enterprises v. CCE - 2004 (60) RLT 342 (T) (xi) Orion Ropes. (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 2006-TIOL-391-CESTAT-MUM (xii) Systematic Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 663 (T) (xiii) Orbit Bearing (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2006-TIOL-1637-CESTAT-Mum. 18. In view of the settled legal position, there cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
