Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 1007 - AT - Central ExciseEligibility for exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dt. 01/03/2002 wrongly availed - Demand for duty and interest and penalty - manufacturer of PSC / RCC and steel pipes - Held that:- Notification and condition No.47A, the exemption is available subject to the condition “if, a certificate is issued by the Collector/DM/DC of the district in which the plant is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to the effect that such goods are cleared for the intended use specified in Column 3 of the table”. The order was placed on Patancheru unit and the certificate was in the name of Patancheru unit and therefore the stand taken by the Revenue that the appellant unit was not eligible for exemption cannot be found fault with. At the same time, we have to take note of the fact that the pipes have been used for the purpose for which the notification provided the exemption. Moreover both Patancheru unit and Azamabad unit belong to the same company. Further the appellants also explained that because of heavy workload and technical problems, pipes were supplied by the other unit. While the demand for duty cannot be found fault with as already mentioned and interest is also payable, we cannot sustain the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules since apparently there was a mistake on the part of the appellant and after all the pipes have been used for purpose for which exemption has been provided. Further the appellants have also reversed the entire amount of CENVAT credit availed in respect of the inputs since they had not paid the duty on the final product. Now that the duty on final products has been upheld by us, the appellants would be entitled to take back the CENVAT credit or seek alternative remedy if it cannot be taken back. In the result, the demand for duty and interest is upheld, penalty is set aside and CENVAT credit already reversed need not have been reversed.
|